|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 211 Records
-
1985 (10) TMI 288 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... examined the evidence on the record and, thereafter, came to the conclusion that the property had been sublet to Achhaibar Prasad. This clearly is a finding of fact and I do not find any legal infirmity in the same. In any case, since, in the instant case, it is now admitted on the record and also by the parties that the possession of the property has already been delivered to the Plaintiff opposite party, the dispute now only remains regarding payment of rent and damages for use and occupation. The revisionists did not hand over possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord. Till the possession was handed over back to the landlord, the revisionists tenant was liable to pay rent. Consequently, the decree for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation passed against the revisionists is in accordance with law. 21. In the result, the revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (10) TMI 287 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that no such person had been called by the detenu to the place of hearing. The Board was not inclined to adjourn the matter. The Board talked to the detenu and ascertained that the detenu was worldly wise, was sufficiently educated and did not suffer from any deficiency and was in a fit condition to represent his case. The rule to be applied is one of prejudice and in the facts of the case we art inclined to agree with Mr. Rana for the State that the detenu was not prejudiced in making an effective representation of his case at the hearing by the Advisory Board in the absence of a friend. There are cases where the affected person is in a better position than anyone else to place his case and in the facts and circumstances available on record, we are inclined to agree with Mr. Rana that the detenu's is one such. 15. Since all the four submissions advanced by Mr. Jethmalani on behalf of the petitioner are rejected, this writ petition has to fail. We accordingly dismiss it.
-
1985 (10) TMI 286 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... as follows (1) Yes - But only to the extent provided by S. 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act. (2) Yes - But only if he had such transferable interest as a contractual tenant. (3) Yes - But only if under the terms of his original contractual tenancy he had a right to transfer his leasehold rights. (4) The decisions in Vasant v. Dikkaya, AIR1980Bom341 and Chandrakant Kashinath Thakur v. Narayan Lakhanna Setty (First Appeal No. 754 of 1978) 1980 Bom RC 122 are not entirely correct in laying down that no statutory tenancy is entitled to transfer his interest. The aforesaid category 'A' tenant would be entitled to transfer his interest irrespective of whether he is a contractual or statutory tenant. But the aforesaid category 'B' tenant will not. whether before or after the termination of his contractual tenancy, be entitled to transfer his interest. The matter may now be placed before the learned single Judge for further hearing. 19. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1985 (10) TMI 285 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... to him. Besides, it may further be pointed out that Nanhey driver was the best witness of this fact but the assessee had withheld the material piece of evidence. The withholding of material piece of evidence go to show that the assessee failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of these facts, the authorities below were perfectly justified in confirming the disallowance. The disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) is upheld. 22. The last dispute is in regard to the disallowance of ₹ 1,250 under the head general charges. We have heard the parties in this regard. The disallowance, in our opinion, is fair and reasonable and, therefore, no interference is called for. It may, however, be pointed out that in ground No. 6 the assessee had mentioned the disallowance of ₹ 1,250, whereas the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance at ₹ 750. We accordingly confirm the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard. 23. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (10) TMI 284 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... by the ITO, he having made all the enquiries necessary before granting the investment allowance it not being even the point taken up by the Commissioner for invoking Section 263 there does not remain anything in the way of the assessee getting the claim of investment allowance. With the set aside of the finding of the Commissioner on the issue of industrial undertaking, there does not seem to be any difference of opinion between the learned two Members except in regard to the further enquiries to be made. Since enquiries were already made in this case and since it was not even the point of the Commissioner that further enquiries should be made or should have been made, further enquiries in this case were not at all needed. I am, therefore, of the view that the view taken by the learned Accountant Member is correct and I express my agreement with that view. 6. Now the matter will go back before the regular Bench for disposal of the appeals in accordance with majority opinion.
-
1985 (10) TMI 282 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r section 101 and the Co-operative Tribunal under that Act are courts and that too courts subordinate to the High Court, as contemplated by section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 197 1. Both the Misc. Civil Applications will now be placed before the Division Bench for proceeding further in accordance with law in the light of the answers given by us in the present references. 46. Mr. Gupta for the respondents at this stage orally requested us for grant of certificat6 of fitness for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court against this judgment. As we have applied the ratio of the decided cases of the Supreme Court on the point and as in our view, the questions referred for our consideration are squarely covered by the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court discussed in details in our judgment’, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as requested by Mr. Gupta. Oral application of Mr. Gupta is, therefore, rejected. 47. Order accordingly.
-
1985 (10) TMI 281 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the superior courts by compelling them to enforce even unjust claims. The power to do justice is an inalienable and inseparable insignia of our constitutional courts. 31. It appears to me that a law totally banning all the courts including the constitutional courts from granting relief to all debtors under all circumstances by disregarding the nature of the loan transactions would no, more be acceptable to our Constitution than a similar law would do to Portia's sense of justice. In this very case the debt is secured by a mortgage and yet carries a stipulation for payment of compound interest. But the transaction cannot be reopened if S. 21-A of the Banking Companies Regulation Act is valid and applicable. I consider such a provision of law to be nakedly arbitrary and partisan and offensive to the sense of equity and equality of Article 14 of the Constitution. 32. For the above reason I dismiss this second appeal. But in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs.
-
1985 (10) TMI 280 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the Court. The review application is accordingly dismissed. Nothing that we have said will affect the separate judgements delivered by each one of US. We direct the Registrar of this Court to keep the documents enumerated hereinafter in sealed covers under his custody, namely 1. The minute-book of the Court proceedings maintained by the Court Master, dated September 14 and 15, 1983. 2. The original draft typescripts of the aforesaid statements prepared by the Court Master on September 14 and 15, 1983. 3. The shorthand notebook of the Private Secretary to Sen, J. dated September 15, 1983 from which the correct drafts of the statements actually made by the counsel on September 14 and 15, 1983 were prepared. 4. The fair drafts prepared by the Private Secretary of the said statements on September 15, 1983. The Registrar shall also keep the original records of Writ Petitions Nos. 535-539 of 1980 in a separate sealed cover under his custody. Petitions allowed and Review Petition
-
1985 (10) TMI 279 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rse open to a prudent trustee for preserving the property of the trust. In the view that the Tribunal took, the Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on this question, but since the question has been specifically referred to us, we have dealt with the same. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the assessee-trust was entitled to switch over to the cash method of accounting in view of the peculiar circumstances in which the trust was placed. 10. For the above reasons, we answer both the questions relating to the assessment year 1971-72 in the affirmation, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, and the first question relating to the assessment year 1972-73 also in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of our reply to question No. 1, it is not necessary for us to answer question Nos. 2 and- 3 insofar as the assessment year 1972-73 is concerned. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (10) TMI 278 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... us to the contention in the cross-objection. As already stated, admittedly, the disputed amount of ₹ 2,34,531/-(including sales tax) has been recovered by the Government on 22,770 tons of bamboos cut and stacked prior to January 16, 1969. Since the amounts were wrongly claimed and recovered and unreasonably withheld even after the suit notice, it would be proper to award interest as claimed at the rate of 6 per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree. Learned Civil Judge was in error in refusing to award interest for that period. Cross objection is therefore entitled to succeed. In the result, while dismissing the appeal, we allow the Cross Objection with costs. It is ordered that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of ₹ 2,34,531/- with interest at 6 per annum from the date of suit (25-8-1972) till the date of decree, (30-6-1975). The appellant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the respondent in this appeal. 20. Order accordingly.
-
1985 (10) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion 125 of the Code, we feel that the said provision should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to there pending final disposal of the application. In taking this view we have also taken note of the provisions of section 7 (2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. 66 of 1984) passed recently by Parliament proposing to transfer the jurisdiction exercisable by magistrates under section 125 of the Code to the Family Courts constituted under the said Act. The above opinion according to us is based on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Code. We are, however, informed that the dispute regarding maintenance is now finally settled between the parties. Hence no further orders are necessary in this case. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
1985 (10) TMI 276 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... held that merely because there was an acquittal of. the accused in the trial before the Magistrate due to paucity of evidence or otherwise did not a necessarily entail in nullifying the order of confiscation of the seized timber or forests produce by the Authorized Officer under sub-s.(2A) of 8.44 of the Act based on his satisfaction that a forest offence had been committed in respect thereof. We affirm the view expressed by Jeewan Reddy, J. in P.K. Mohammad's case and by Kondaiah, C.J. and Punnayya, J. in Mohd. Yaseen's case. The result therefore is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court passed under 8. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for stay of the proceedings before the Authorized Officer under sub-s. (2A) of 8. 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 are set aside and the Authorized Officer is directed to proceed with the inquiry for confiscation of the seized timber in accordance with law. Appeal Allowed
-
1985 (10) TMI 275 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ourt. The review application is accordingly dismissed. Nothing that we have said will affect the separate judgements delivered by each one of US. We direct the Registrar of this Court to keep the documents enumerated hereinafter in sealed covers under his custody, namely 1. The minute-book of the Court proceedings maintained by the Court Master, dated September 14 and 15, 1983. 2. The original draft typescripts of the aforesaid statements prepared by the Court Master on September 14 and 15, 1983. 3. The shorthand notebook of the Private Secretary to Sen, J. dated September 15, 1983 from which the correct drafts of the statements actually made by the counsel on September 14 and 15, 1983 were prepared. 4. The fair drafts prepared by the Private Secretary of the said statements on September 15, 1983. The Registrar shall also keep the original records of Writ Petitions Nos. 535-539 of 1980 in a separate sealed cover under his custody. M.L.A. Petitions allowed and Review Petition
-
1985 (10) TMI 274 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... W.P. 5146 of 1979 and 863 of 1980, dated 8-8-1984, and applying them in this case, there is absolutely no substance whatever in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 9. It has earlier been pointed out how the petitioner in W.P. 3155 of 1980 has filed that writ petition without exhausting the other adequate and alternative remedies by way of an appeal as well as a revision and that too after about four years after the passing of the impugned order. Apart from the circumstance that the petitioner has not exhausted the other effective remedies available to him under the law, this writ petition has also to be thrown out on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioner as well. 10. Thus, on a due consideration of all the facts and circumstances, no case for interfering with the impugned orders is made out. Consequently, the rule nisi is discharged and the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee ₹ 1,500 one set.
-
1985 (10) TMI 273 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s were wholly exempt or partially exempt from such levy. It would also not make any difference to our answer whether countervailing duty or additional duty is held to be a duty chargeable under Section 2A of the Tariff Act and under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act respectively or those duties are chargeable under Section 12 of the Customs Act. In other words, whether Section 12 of the Customs Act is the charging section or Section 2A of the Tariff Act or Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act respectively are the charging sections in respect of countervailing duty or additional duty, our answer to the second question would remain unaffected. 62. Question No. 4 In view of our answer to the third question, it is unnecessary to answer the fourth question. 63. Matters may now be placed before the Division Bench along with the answers to the questions referred to the Full Bench. 64. Ordered accordingly. 65. Costs in this matter will be costs in the writ petitions.
-
1985 (10) TMI 272 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route can ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector if he does not pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route?
Held that:- Unable to see any merit in any of the Civil Appeals since none of the schemes placed before us contain any saving clause in favour of operators plying or wanting to ply stage carriages on common sectors. On the other hand we found that invariably there is a clause to the following effect : "No person other than the State Government Undertaking will be permitted to provide road transport services on the routes specified in paragraph 2 or any part thereof". In the face of a provision of this nature in the scheme totally prohibiting private operators from plying stage carriages on a whole or part A of the notified routes, it is futile to contend that any of the appellants can claim to ply their vehicles on the notified routes or part of the notified routes. All the appeals and Special Leave Petitions are therefore dismissed, with costs which we quantify at ₹ 2,500 in each. All the interim orders of this court which enabled the appellants to operate their vehicles on notified routes or part of notified routes or which enabled the appellants to apply for and obtain permits to 80 operate, with or without the so- called corridor restrictions are hereby vacated. Appeals and Petitions dismissed.
-
1985 (10) TMI 271 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are parts that are sold by charging additional price thereof. The interpretation put by the learned counsel for the C.T.O. is not correct, for entry No. 17 of Table 17 regarding spare parts thereof also refers to the parts of the tractor which are purchased by the purchaser from the dealer by paying additional price either at the time of purchase of the tractor or thereafter. It is not restricted or limited to the spare parts that are supplied with the sale of the tractor and for which no separate price is charged. In this view of the matter the rate of sales tax chargeable on nut-bolts, hose pipes, hose clips, lift chains and tiller shovels, etc., will be 2 per cent and not 7 per cent under entry No. 19 of Table 17. The view taken by the Board that the aforesaid parts of the tractor are chargeable to tax at the rate of 2 per cent only is correct. The revision (reference treated as revision) is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1985 (10) TMI 270 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to evade sales tax so as to frustrate important object of the Act. This, in our opinion, is nothing but a technical error. The default committed by the dealer-assessee, or for that matter non-compliance of rule 25C(1) of the Rules in this respect is merely technical and should be overlooked, so as not to entail the consequence of imposition of penalty on the transactions of sales contained in form S.T. 17, if they are otherwise in order. The view taken by the Division Bench of the Board is correct. The Board of Revenue was justified in holding that even though the default on the part of the dealer-assessee under rule 25C of the Rules was established, yet this default only constituted a technical breach and may be overlooked. No interference is called for with the order dated March 4, 1978, of the Division Bench of the Board. The result is that the revision (reference treated as revision) fails and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1985 (10) TMI 269 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case which has to be decided by the assessing authority in the light of the evidence before it. The Board has categorically come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a restaurant and it supplies fruit juice and cold drinks, etc., to its customers which are consumed there as the customers sit in the restaurant and consume them. Applying the tests laid down in Electa B. Merrill s case LRA 1915-B 481, which has been referred in N.I. Caterers India s case 1978 42 STC 386 (SC) and respectfully following Durga Bhavan s case 1981 47 STC 104 (AP) in the light of the definition of the term sale as contained in section 2 of the Act, we are of the opinion that the Board was right in coming to the conclusion that there was no sale of the fruit juice, ice-cream, etc. The view taken by the Board thus, calls for no interference. The result is that the revision petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1985 (10) TMI 268 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aterial on the record as to when the truck in question reached the exit check post at Fatehpur Sikri. Unless the petitioner presents itself along with the specific goods at the check post, the question of considering whether any penalty is to be levied or not, cannot be considered. In view of what has been stated above, we think the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner presents the specific goods at the check post, at the earliest, and offers an explanation for the delayed reaching at the check post. If the specified goods are there in the truck and the explanation offered by the driver/ owner/agent of the goods is reasonable or plausible, the Sales Tax Officer shall allow the truck to pass without imposition of any penalty. In considering the delay the period during which the writ petition remained pending in this Court, shall be excluded from consideration. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the above directions. There will be no order as to costs.
........
|
