|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 99 Records
-
1977 (12) TMI 150 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... of ballot papers is essentially necessary for proper adjudication and the Court is satisfied on evidence that such extreme step is necessary. Mr. Maitra further contended that issue of an inventory commission is a matter of discretion of the Court and if the Court has exercised such discretion there should be no interference under Section 115 C. P. C. particularly when such exercise of discretion is not perverse. The question of exercising discretion, however, does not arise in this case because we are of the view that an inventory commission cannot be issued for the purpose of fishing out some evidence which may be adduced by either of the parties in the suit. It is, therefore, an improper exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below and such improper exercise has occasioned material failure of justice. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute. There will however, be no order as to costs. The prayer for stay of the operation of the order is refused. P.K. Banerjee, J. 5. I agree.
-
1977 (12) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dence to this effect and nothing has been brought out in the course of cross-examination. On the fateful night the accused was late in coming to his house at 11.00 P.M. from a "Bhujia Party". We do not find anything from the conduct of the accused to hold in his favour. The fact that he shouted "thief thief" is a deliberate false plea in answer to an inevitable charge against him. We agree with the High Court that the plea of the accused about the story of theft is absolutely false. 17. We are clearly of opinion that the High Court was absolutely correct in appreciation of the entire circumstances and reaching the conclusion of guilt of the appellant. It is not at all possible to support the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Judge in any view of the matter. It is not a case in which it could be said that two views may be reasonably taken of the true tell-tale of the circumstances revealed in the evidence against the accused. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 148 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it would not have been encashed by the plaintiff bank. Both the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 changed their position for worse before the mistake was detected by the plaintiff and communicated to them. Neither the defendant No. 1 nor the defendant No. 2 can be said to have derived any benefit from the mistake committed by the plaintiff bank. It is true that the defendant No. 1 made a transaction of sale in lieu of the money that was credited to his account by the defendant No. 2, but it had to deliver its property to those alleged representatives. In these circumstances, in our opinion, both from the point of view of equitable principles and the doctrine of estoppel, the plaintiff is disentitled to recover the money from either of the defendants. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, we affirm the judgment and decree of the learned Judge and dismiss this appeal. But in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Sharma, J. I agree.
-
1977 (12) TMI 147 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is to say, on the 25th June. 1977. But in the view that I have taken on the other aspect of the matter that the time had not started to run until the statements filed in the written statements of May, 1075, I need not rest my decision in allowing this application on this aspect of the matter. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the prayer for amendment is allowed and there will be an order in terms of prayers (i), (ii) and (iii). The amendments to be effected within 3 weeks on a signed copy of the minutes. The applicant will pay the costs of this application to the different sets of appearing respondents and also the cost of additional written statements, if any. This order however, will not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties. The plaintiff, within a fortnight from the amendment being effected will serve upon the defendants copies of the amended plaint and the defendants will be at liberty to file additional written statements, if any within a fortnight therefrom.
-
1977 (12) TMI 146 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hey had instituted a suit as soon as possible after the constructions were started, they were entitled to a decree in their favour. In other words, the lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff-respondents were not required to show any special damage. I am of the view that in the peculiar fads of this case it is unnecessary to determine whether & plaintiff in a suit for demolition of constructions made over joint land, should prove special damage, specially as the constructions are incomplete and their value is only about ₹ 500/- as found by the trial court, which valuation was not challenged before the lower appellate court. The plaintiffs having instituted the suit very soon after the constructions started being made and having not in any manner acquiesced in the constructions by the defendant-appellants were rightly granted a mandatory injunction directing the removal of the constructions. 18. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1977 (12) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... employees in the industry and did appear or act as such. We may observe here in passing that even new union to which the appellant and some of his co-employees belonged would have no right appear or act on behalf of the appellant or his co-employees in the aforesaid proceeding initiated by respondent No. 1 as it had not been registered and recognised as the representative union of employees under the Act. 20. In conclusion, we wish to make it clear that as learned Counsel for the parties have abstained from addressing us regarding the legality or otherwise of the aforesaid strike in view of the fact that it was not open to the appellant to agitate that question because the Labour Court had refused to add him as a party to respondent No. 1's aforesaid application No. 1455 of 1976, we have refrained from making; any observation in regard thereto. 21. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.
-
1977 (12) TMI 144 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... priority industry in respect of not only Beta Naphthol plant but also the other plants, is sent back to the Income-tax Officer for examination and reconsideration on merits in accordance with law. (4) Gratuity liability provided for in the year in accordance with actuarial valuation is to be allowed in full as we have held that the entire liability accrued to the assessee during the previous year. (5) The assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of water charges for the year under appeal on the basis of actual liabilities settled by it with the Irrigation Department and not on the basis of original levy, and (6) The process and design the cost of which comes to ₹ 1,52,392 in connection with the assessee’s business of production of Cynauric Chloride were not used for any business during the previous year. The claim of the assesee for development rebate cannot, therefore, be considered in the year under appeal. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ence in the event of an adverse verdict from this Court. However they will be put on conditions which counsel for the petitioners accepts. The petitioners will keep out of the village Gonegondla except for one day in a week. They will be allowed to enter the village on that day only after reporting to the police at the Gonegondla police station. They shall leave the village the next day and they wilt report to the police when they are departing from the village. This will help the police to have a vigilant eye on the petitioners and prevent them, from doing mischief inside the village and incidentally wilt help the petitioners carry on their agricultural operations by once-a-week supervision. It is commendable, if the petitioners choose to report daily before any therapeutic centre for psychic reformation, such as a transcendental meditation centre. This is left to their option but may eventually prove to their good. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 142 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bona fides by the petitioner and is due to the party having acted in a particular manner on the wrong advice given by his legal adviser, he cannot be held guilty of negligence so as to disentitle him to plead sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act. (State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality & Ors. 1972 2 S.C.R. 871. Equally when the petition is not properly stamped the Court has ample powers to extend the time for affixing proper court-fee. Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers ample power on the High Court to exercise its powers in order to do justice to a litigant where the failure is not due to any fault of the litigant (Mahant Ram Das v. Ganga Das 1961 3 S.C.R. 763 ). We are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that the objections were filed beyond time. We allow the appeal and direct the respondents to pay 'costs of the appellant in this Court. M.R. Appeal allowed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 141 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xamine all the eye witnesses first and such other material witnesses thereafter as may be produced by the prosecution as early as possible. Trial should proceed de die in diem as far as practicable at least so far as the eye witnesses and the above referred to Panch witness are concerned. We have to make this order as both Mr. Mulla and Mr. Mukherjee submitted that trial will take a long time as the witnesses cited in the charge sheet are more than 200 and it will be a punishment to keep the appellants in detention pending the trial. We have, therefore, thought it fit to make the above observation to which the learned Addl. Solicitor General had readily and very fairly agreed. After the statements of the eye witnesses and the said Panch witness have been recorded, it will be open to the accused to move the Sessions Judge for admitting them to bail, pending further hearing. the appeals are dismissed with the above observations. The Stay Orders stand vacated. Appeal dismissed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 140 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... voidable circumstances and informed the same to the seller by telegram. On the admitted facts of that case, the transaction failed due to default or failure of the purchaser. So, no question of charge under Section 55(6) of the T. P. Act arose or could arise under the facts of that case. 46. Now with regard to the question whether buyer has repudiated the contract on the facts of this case, it does not appear that the plaintiff-purchaser has committed any breach amounting to repudiation. There is no issue as to forfeiture of earnest money and also there is no oral evidence directed to that effect. My learned brother has discussed the point in detail and I do not wish to add. 47. It is not necessary to deal with other points as the same have been dealt with by my learned brother and I agree with the same. 48. In this view of the matter, I also agree with my learned brother that the cross-objection must fail. I also agree with the decree and order passed by my learned brother.
-
1977 (12) TMI 139 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... manufacture cartons for packaging goods. In the manufacture of printed cartons printing is the dominant activity. In the total cost also the cost on account of printing is in the range of 70% to 90% depending on the type of printing. Considering these circumstances, the printed cartons are more appropriately to be treated as the products to the printing industry and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 122/75-CE, dated 5-5-1975. In these circumstances, therefore, the revision application is allowed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there may not be sufficient justification to negative the existence of any implied duty on the part of the Commission, at that stage, to hear any party before taking its decision to order or not to order a report?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Being not altogether certain of all the facts and circumstances that may be made available, in the appropriate forum, it may be a premature exercise by this Court even to lay down guidelines when there is no hide-bo and formula of rules of natural justice to operate in all cases and at all times when a decision has to be made. Justice and fair play have often to be harmonised with exigencies of situations in the light of accumulated totality of circumstances in a given case having regard to the question of prejudice not to the mere combatants in an electoral contest but to the real and larger issue of completion of free and fair election with rigorous promptitude. Not being adequately informed of all the facts and circumstances, this Court will not make the task of the election court difficult and embarrassing by suggesting guidelines in a rather twilight zone.
-
1977 (12) TMI 137 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his power under section 48. The learned counsel urged that the first requisite for the exercise of power under section 48 is that the Collector should be satisfied that the arrears of revenue cannot be liquidated by the sale of the property of the defaulter or his surety and that there was no such satisfaction in the case. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in K. Yadagiri v. Superintendent of Musheerabad Central Jail 1975 1 An. W.R. 267., to which one of us (Chennakesav Reddy, J.) was a party. We do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of this contention in view of our conclusion reached aforesaid on the first contention that the demand notice itself was invalid and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddapah, had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant under section 48 of the Act. In the upshot, the writ petition is allowed and the detenu M. Reddanna is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 136 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the requirement of sub-section (4). A copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the revising authority has been filed as annexure 5 to this petition. We find that in that affidavit the petitioner had, without specifying any detail, made a bald statement to the effect that due to heavy losses its engineering unit was virtually lying closed and no business was being done. It is significant that in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit the petitioner had neither disclosed the net turnover nor the amount of outstanding tax required to be paid by him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the revising authority committed any error of jurisdiction in not exercising his discretion in the petitioner s favour. In this view of the matter, we are not satisfied that any case has been made out for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 132(12) or by a court in writ proceedings was not subject to the limitations prescribed under section 132(5). The principle laid down in this decision rendered under the Income-tax Act would apply to the facts of the present case where the reassessment has been made as per the directions of the Supreme Court given on 7th January, 1971, in C.A. No. 565 of 1967, having regard to the fact that sections 2 and 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act have been amended with retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the principal Act and the liability for Central sales tax has been made in respect of inter-State sales, even though under the general sales tax law relating to this State, the sale of cotton was taxable only at the stage of last purchase. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the plea of limitation raised on behalf of the assessees is untenable. In the result, we dismiss the tax revision case with the costs of the revenue. Advocate s fee Rs. 500. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 134 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ble to say, merely from the fact that there has been a reassessment of escaped turnover on the basis of best judgment, that there has been a wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover. There must be something to indicate that the turnover did in fact exist and that the assessee had wilfully not disclosed that assessable turnover. The department has to establish that the assessee had the necessary mens rea before it could be stated that a turnover, which escaped assessment, was wilfully not disclosed by him. Following the decision in Oveekee Textiles v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchengode 1971 27 S.T.C. 439., and our decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. S.M. Baba Sahib 1979 44 S.T.C. 299. (T.C. Nos. 317 and 318 of 1974), we hold that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty on the ground that there was no finding that there has been a wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover. The tax revision case is dismissed, but without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 133 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ification itself qualified books by indicating that books are those meant for reading. We have already given two illustrations that will not fall under that category and we can mention a third one like a picture book. It is not correct to say that when we look at pictures in a book, we are reading the books. A picture book may not, therefore, fall within the expression reading books . But we do not wish to commit ourselves on this aspect and would be content with the first two exemptions, one which was upheld by this court and the other also held to be outside the similar notification by another decision. In the light of the above, the order of the Board of Revenue cannot stand. We, therefore, set aside the same and allow this revision with costs and hold that the publications already referred to are items which would fall under item 22 of the schedule to the notification. The appellant will have its costs from the revenue including counsel s fee of Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 132 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... od, it would be clear that wooden plugs, round blocks, wooden switch boxes, etc., cannot fall under the category of electrical goods, for, it could not be held that their use cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy. These articles are used to fasten the wiring system in fixing up the electrical wiring and it cannot be stated that their use cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Board of Revenue erred in treating these articles as electrical goods falling under item 41 of the First Schedule and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in holding that they are not electrical goods liable to tax under section 3(2) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue is set aside and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. The revenue will pay the assessee s costs in this appeal. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Appeal allowed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 131 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... und as a fact. Under the G.O. such canteens, though run by the employees on a co-operative basis on behalf of the employer, should be run under a statutory obligation, but without profit-motive. If circumstances disclose on a scrutiny of the accounts that profits are secured by such an institution, then probably the result may be otherwise. I am not however concerned with this aspect as it has not been examined by the assessing authority in the light of the material placed before him when he passed the impugned orders. In this view, there are errors apparent in the orders impugned. The orders therefore have to be removed by making the rule absolute. The writ petitions are allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. The subject-matter in each of these writ petitions is remitted back to the file of the respective assessing authority and it is for him to re-examine the material already on record and find out whether the petitioner s claim for exemption is justified in law.
|
