|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 147 Records
-
1981 (10) TMI 190 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nalty. In view of the overall circumstances of the case, including those mentioned in the judgment of our learned Brother B.K. Mehta, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has undergone penalty for a period approximately of 2" years, we would have precluded the University from reconsidering the question of penalty and directed it to treat the chapter as closed. 49. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed. 50. The judgment under appeal is set aside. Rule is made absolute on the main Writ Petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned decision of the Syndicate of the respondent. University and by directing the respondent-University to forthwith declare the result of the petitioner for the First Year B.A. Examination held in the month of March/April, 1979. The respondent-University shall forthwith permit the petitioner to attend the classes on the basis of the declaration of such result. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs throughout.
-
1981 (10) TMI 189 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t with the employer (vide Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (o), But then here the Company is not raising a plea that the 564 workers became parties to the settlement by reason of their acquiescence in or acceptance of a settlement already arrived at or a plea that the reference is not maintainable because the Telco Union represents only a minority of workers. On the other hand the only two contentions raised by the Company are - (i) that the settlement is binding on all members of the Sanghatana including the 564 mentioned above because the Sanghatana was a party to it, and (ii) that the reference is liable to be answered in accordance with the settlement because the same is just and fair. And both these are contentions which we find fully acceptable for reasons already stated. 8. In the result the appeal succeeds and is accepted. The impugned award is set aside and is substituted by one in conformity with the settlement. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 188 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he word 'resides' is a flexible one and has many shades of meaning, but it must take its colour and content from the context in which it appears and cannot be read in isolation. It follows that it was the actual residence of the appellant, at the commencement of the proceedings, that had to be considered for determining whether the District Judge, Almora, had jurisdiction or not. That being so, the High Court was clearly in error in uphold in the finding of the learned District Judge that he had jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition for annulment of marriage filed by the respondent under s. 12 of the Act. In the result, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the District Judge, Almora, is directed to return to the respondent the petition filed by him for nullity of marriage under s. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for presentation to the proper court, i.e. the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. There shall be Do order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 187 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for roads. This is apart from the cost of laying roads themselves and the cost of providing other amenities like electricity, water, underground drainage etc. In Tribeni Devi and Ors. v. Collector of Ranchi the Court allowed a deduction of 33-1/3 per cent, towards the cost of development. The cost of development may range from 20 to 33 per cent. depending on the nature of the land, its situation and the stage of development etc. The Tribunal had before it material on which it directed a cut of 33 per cent, of the market value in one and 20 per cent in the other. It cannot be said that the aforesaid deductions were arbitrary or unreasonable having regard to the fact that the land acquired is an undeveloped area and the award of the Tribunal is based on the 'belting' principle. Subject to the direction as to payment of interest at 6 per cent, per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation, the special leave petitions are dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
-
1981 (10) TMI 186 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty of trust properties is involved. In view of this legal position, In hold that the appeal filed by defendants nos.3,5 and 6 before the learned District Judge, Jalgaon being civil Appeal No.124 of 1974 was not competent appeal and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned District judge in the appeal are liable to be vacated. I do not think it necessary to deal with the other point regarding bar of O.2, R.2 of the Civil P.C. as the appeal stands disposed of on the preliminary point raised by mr.Lalit. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellate decree, dated Feb.9, 1976 in Appeal No.124 of 1974 is set aside and the decree of the trial court in civil suit No.618 of 1972, D/- April 11, 1974 is restored and confirmed. Mr. Lalit for the appellant pressed for costs throughout. I do not agree with the learned Advocate as the appellant has succeeded on a technical point and therefore the appellant will be entitled to the costs of this appeal. 17. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 185 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is likely to be confused-The dealings with the Canteen Stores Department are obviously based on prior approval of the Department and whether or not that Department adheres to the policy to give preference to an Ex-Serviceman's venture over the business activity of others, there is little likelihood of any confusion for the Department would know whom they are dealing with. 11. For all these reasons, I am of the view that no restraint would be justified on the facts and circumstances of this case. Interest of justice would be satisfied by a direction to the defendant to maintain regular account of the dealings in the sewing machines under any of the above trademarks. Defendant would file a quarterly statement of account in this Court. 12. Subject to the above direction, I.A. 968/81 fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim injunction granted earlier is vacated. I.A. 1794/81 succeeds and the proceedings in the suit are accordingly stayed. There would, however, be no costs.
-
1981 (10) TMI 184 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in cases where a Court is satisfied that something has been done, which it is necessary in the larger interest of the administration of justice, that the Court should take notice of.... ...But where the order issued is a doubtful order, Where the order itself has been vacated.... simply because a party considers that he has been aggrieved by some action which he considers high-handed, it would not be proper to issue a notice for contempt to show cause. (Emphasis supplied). 13. The above passage was referred to with approval by the Division Bench in Manohar Lal's case (supra). 14. I am of the contrary view expressed in re. Thakorlal Parshottamdas v. Chandulal Chunilal AIR 1967 Guj 124 and in re; Gobinda Parida v. Chakradhara Routray AIR 1971 Orissa 10. For the reasons already recorded I am, with great respect to the learned Judges, unable to subscribe to the view taken in these two cases. 15. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1981 (10) TMI 183 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of trust properties is involved. In inview of this legal position, In hold that the appeal filed by defendants nos.3,5 and 6 before the learned District Judge, Jalgaon being civil Appeal No.124 of 1974 was not competent appeal and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned District judge in the appeal are liable to be vacated. I do not think it necessary to deal with the other point regarding bar of O.2, R.2 of the Civil P.C. as the appeal stands disposed of on the preliminary point raised by mr.Lalit. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellate decree, dated Feb.9, 1976 in Appeal No.124 of 1974 is set aside and the decree of the trial court in civil suit No.618 of 1972, D/- April 11, 1974 is restored and confirmed. Mr. Lalit for the appellant pressed for costs throughout. I do not agree with the learned Advocate as the appellant has succeeded on a technical point and therefore the appellant will be entitled to the costs of this appeal. 17. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 182 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... condoned, the proceedings should be remitted back to the revisional authorities for passing appropriate order. I do not propose to adopt that course, because on merits, the Department has no answer to the claim made by the petitioners. In fact, the revisional authority itself had allowed other seven revisional applications which were admittedly filed in time. In these circumstances, no valid purpose would be served by remitting the matters back to the revisional authorities for passing appropriate orders. The petitioners are entitled to relief in this petition itself. 8. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute and the order dated January 9, 1976 passed by the revisional authority dismissing the two revisional applications is set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the Customs duty to the petitioners after calculating the same within a period of three months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (10) TMI 181 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... correct reading of the Notification, the Board observes that the exemption is not in respect of raw materials received and consumed during the particular period but it is in respect of the goods manufactured on or after 18-6-1977 and cleared (irrespective of the period when inputs were received). The amount becomes due only when the goods are cleared out of the factory and to the extent of duty paid on inputs. 22. The Board, therefore, directs that the amount of refund shall be calculated correctly by taking into account the average quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of every unit of the goods during the material period, the amount of duty that has been paid on such quantity of inputs (whether procured during the material period or earlier), the actual clearances of the goods manufactured from 18-6-1977 onwards and the amount of refund already paid. The appeal is allowed only to the extent that the refunds shall be of the amounts calculated in the above manner.
-
1981 (10) TMI 180 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ed in bulk at the factory gate. It is also not disputed that whenever the goods were sold in bulk from their godowns the price was the same as that declared in the price-lists. This would mean that the normal price for the goods cleared in bulk at the factory gate is available. Government hold that where such normal price is available, it should apply to all clearances in bulk provided the petitioners cleared the goods in bulk after payment of appropriate duty, what was done to the duty paid goods subsequently after clearance should not be concern of the the department unless the petitioners could be said to have carried out a further process of manufacture on the goods. Government are in agreement with the petitioners contention that repacking of the duty paid goods in smaller containers did not constitute a process of manufacture in the circumstances of this case. 5. In view of the above, the Government set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the revision application.
-
1981 (10) TMI 179 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... 5-Cus./76; this benefit is otherwise not available to those parts. It is doubtful that such an elaborate Notification would be envisaged only to give this limited benefit that too indirectly with the help of another notification. 8. Having regard to the background of the case and the submissions made by the petitioners Government agree with the Appellate Collector that it is not essential that a change in the notification should always be interpreted in such a way as to make a change in the meaning. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Government hold that the purpose of the amended Notification No. 29-Cus/77 was only to place the matter, which was already settled in the notification No. 395-Cus/76, beyond all shadow of doubt and, as such, the amended Notification does not make any material difference in the contents or effect of the said notification. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Government uphold the orders in appeal and drop the review proceeding.
-
1981 (10) TMI 178 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... reduced rate under an exemption notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Government hold that the Division Bench judgment does not apply. 13. The Government further observe that there is inherent difficulty in accepting the senior Counsel’s contention which amounts to saying that Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is redundant. Such an interpretation is in violation of the principle of harmonious construction and interpretation of the specific provision in the statute and such a view is clearly not tenable and must therefore be eschewed as it is a settled rule of interpretation that no provision could be so read as to make any other provision completely otiose or redundant. In this view of the matter and in view of the principle settled by the Supreme Court in Prakash Cotton Mills case, the Government of India do not find any merits in the revision application. The Appellate Order is therefore upheld and the revision application is rejected.
-
1981 (10) TMI 177 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... paid, therefore, further levy of duty on the value of glass panels would amount to double taxation, which is not tenable. 18. The Board, accordingly orders that while verifying each and every invoice as already ordered in this order, the Collector should ensure that value of glass panels bought from market should be deducted from what he ultimately decides as the assessable value. 19. Since the appellants were required to take out a Central Excise licence to manufacture goods falling under Item 68 of C.E.T. and to comply with all the formalties described under the Central Excise Rules, the goods found by the officers on 2-5-1980 were correctly confiscated by the Collector. The fine of ₹ 1,000/- in lieu of confiscation cannot be called excessive and is, therefore, confirmed. 20. The Board, however, finds that there was no case here warranting a personal penalty. Accordingly, the personal penalty of ₹ 5,000/- imposed by the Collector is set aside.
-
1981 (10) TMI 176 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ble view taken by the Collector on remand, and therefore, the Collector should be directed to pass the appropriate orders in a very short period of time. In my judgment, the submission is correct. I propose to direct the Collector to dispose of the application on merits within a period of four weeks from to-day. 7. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute and the impugned order dated March 2, 1978 is set aside and the Collector is directed to dispose of the application for grant of licence before November 16, 1981. The Collector shall proceed on the basis that the petitioners have satisfied the requirements of Rule 2(b) and would consider whether other requirements of Rule 2 are satisfied or not. The Collector is specifically directed not to reopen the issue of experience of the petitioners and decide only as regards the satisfaction of other conditions. As the order passed by the Collector is entirely unsustainable, the respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioners.
-
1981 (10) TMI 175 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... applicant to get an import licence on the basis of a policy which was available at the time of the application. The observations of the Supreme Court were relied upon by Shri Chinai to urge that the Government felt that the export of silver was not in the interest of the economical well-being of the country and, therefore, the policy was altered. The" return filed by the respondents does not indicate any such reasons for change of policy and, therefore, it is not permissible for Shri Chinai to go behind the return and claim that the change of policy was for certain other reasons. In my Judgment, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition. 10. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. The respondents shall grant the cash assistance and issue the replenishment licences within a period of eight weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (10) TMI 174 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of an order dated March 27, 1981 passed by respondent 1, the State of Punjab, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign enchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 challenged
Held that:- The failure in this case on the part either of the Jail Superintendent or the State Government to forward the detenu's representation to the Central Government has deprived the detenu of the valuable right to have his detention revoked by that Government. The coutinued detention of the detenu must therefore be held illegal and the detenu set free. Petitions allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 173 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the order of detention has been passed on the materials before it?
Held that:- It has been stated in the affidavit that the entire record was placed before the Home Minister who "after careful consideration of the entire record has passed the impugned order of detention" and that he (Mr. Shah) "only authenticated the impugned order of detention in accordance with sub-clause (2) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India." As the order has been A taken in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and validly authenticated by the Deputy Secretary concerned, the order tentamounts to an order by the State Government of Gujarat. It therefore cannot be said that the order of detention was not passed by the competent authority. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 172 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the detention was inter alia based on the seizures of the four articles mentioned in para 3 of the list of grounds and the reply of the authority to the request were irrelevant?
Held that:- It is needless to say that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court either under Article 32 or under Article 136 of the Constitution do not sit on appeal on the orders of preventive detention. The normal law is that when an isolated offence or isolated offences is or are committed, the offender is to be prosecuted. But, if there be a law of preventive detention empowering the authority to detain a particular offender in order to disable him to repeat his offences, it can do so, but it will be obligatory on the part of the detaining authority to formally comply with the provisions of Sub-Article (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The High Court under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 has to see whether the formalities enjoined by Article 22(5) have been complied with by the detaining authority. If the formalities have been complied with, the Court cannot examine the materials before it and find that the detaining authority should not have been satisfied on the materials before it and detained the detenu under the Preventive Detention Act, for, that is the function of an appellate Court.
In the instant case, we are not satisfied that the detaining authority has violated either the relevant provisions of the Constitution or any of the provisions of the Act. This petition has no merit and is rejected.
-
1981 (10) TMI 171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... contention of the learned Government Pleader was that the calculation of the penalty by the assessing authority did not disclose any error in computation. We do not wish to go into the arithmetic of the penalty in this case, when the authorities invested with the requisite power and having the requisite leisure and professional assistance to go into the figures had come to the conclusion that even on the basis of the unauthorised collection of sales tax on second sales by the assessee the levy of penalty cannot exceed Rs. 463. This means the Tribunal was quite justified in dismissing the application made by the department for enhancement of the penalty from the figures at which it was sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The result is that T.C. No. 1058 of 1977 is allowed and T.C. No. 914 of 1980 is dismissed resulting in the sustaining of the penalty in the sum of Rs. 463. In view of the mixed results of these two revisions, there will be no order as to costs.
........
|
