|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 241 Records
-
1985 (4) TMI 347 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ysis of the material which was placed before him, has determined the quantity of stock removed from the three godowns at 235 metric tonnes and the value thereof at Rs. 14 lakhs. We would, therefore, direct the first respondent to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs within six weeks from today by way of restitution for the quantity of the goods removed from the three godowns so that the position as it obtained prior to the removal of the goods from the three godowns is restored as far as practicable. We may, however, make it clear that it would be open to the first respondent to contend in the assessment proceedings or in the course of any other proceedings before the tax authority that the value of the goods removed by him from the three godowns taking advantage of the ex parte order of injunction obtained by him was less than Rs. 14 lakhs but the burden of proving so will be on the first respondent. 6. The special leave petition will stand disposed of in these terms.
-
1985 (4) TMI 346 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on 313 of the Code. What the prosecution now wants and what the Court has allowed is recalling the investigating officer to be examined again for production and proof of the disclosure statements. The fact that it was not available for being put to the investigating officer when he was examined indicates that its late production and proof will prejudice the accused in his defence, 5. Under Section 311 of the Code the Court is, having the power to recall and re-examine any witness. But that could be only when the Court is satisfied that it is essential for the just decision of the case. Recalling and re-examining a witness like the investigating officer for production and proof of a vital record having great relevance in deciding the guilt of the accused and that too after conclusion of the evidence cannot be said to be essential for the just decision of the case. It may result in miscarriage of justice. 6. The petition is therefore allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1985 (4) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (page 1215 of the Report) is that a large number of middle-aged women who are being divorced without rhyme or reason should not be thrown on the streets without a roof over their heads and without any mean; of sustaining themselves and their children. 39. The Report concludes thus In the words of Allama Iqbal, the question which is likely to confront Muslim countries in the near future, is whether the law of Islam is capable of evolution-a question which will require great intellectual effort, and is sure to be answered in the affirmative. 40. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment of the High Court. The appellant will pay the costs of the appeal to respondent 1, which we quantify at rupees ten thousand. It is needless to add that it would be open to the respondent to make an application under Section 127(1) of the Code for increasing the allowance of maintenance granted to her on proof of a change in the circumstances as envisaged by that section.
-
1985 (4) TMI 344 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s another thing. Admittedly. Assistant Sub Inspector is an officer below the rank of a Sub Inspector. By authorisation of powers, he cannot get the rank of a Sub Inspector unless he is promoted and appointed to that post. In spite of investing of powers he continues to be an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, the search conducted by him is not competent under the provisions of Sec. 5. Further he did not get the requisite information and he did not make the requisite enquiries also. The presumption under Sec. 6 is not available. The result is that Annexures-A1 to A3 cannot be taken to have disclosed any offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act. The cognizance taken by the Magistrate is therefore illegal. The trial of the case will therefore be an abuse of process of court. This is a fit case in which the Court has to interfere on the basis powers conferred under Sec. 482. The petition is therefore allowed and Annexure-A3 charge is quashed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 343 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot have been regarded per se as disclosing negligence or want of bona fides on the part of the appellants. The fault or want of diligence, if any, lay elsewhere for which the appellants cannot be blamed. Besides, a considerable portion of the delay is attributable partly, if not wholly, to the confusion which arose on account of the non-preparation of the decree sheet in time by the trial court Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it was impossible to reach the conclusion that sufficient cause to condone the delay was not made out. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The application made by the appellants for the condonation of delay is granted. The case is remanded to the District Court with a direction that the appeal will be registered and that it will be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and not later than September 30, 1985. No order as to costs. 10. The parties will appear before the District Court on April 25, 1985.
-
1985 (4) TMI 342 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, 1959 1SCR1111 which was a case for declaration and a third party on his application was added. The facts of that case are not applicable and do not help the plaintiff. Reference has also been made to Dattatraya Govind Shaligram v. Gopal Sakharam Pandhare Air 1931 Bom 330 Messrs. Trojan & Co. v. Rm N.N. Nagappa Chettiar 1953 4SCR789 and Joseph alias Kochu v. Makkaru Pillal AIR1960Ker127 . it is not necessary to refer to these precedents as they are not relevant for the decision of the question in this revision. It is Therefore held that International Air Transport Association petitioner-defendant No. 2 has been improperly joined as defendant No. 2 to the present plaint and Therefore its name is liable to be struck out. The revision petition is accordingly accepted with costs setting aside the impugned order dated 30th July. 1982. The name of defendant No. 2 is ordered to be struck out from the plaint Counsel fee Rs. 500.00 .
-
1985 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for anticipatory bail was made and granted. If such an order is allowed to stand, faith of public in administration of justice is likely to be considerably shaken. Therefore, we have no option but to cancel the order granting anticipatory bail. 14. By our setting aside the order granting anticipatory bail, respondent should in no way be prejudiced. If consequent upon the setting aside of the order granting anticipatory bail, the respondent is arrested which must ordinarily follow, it is open to him, if he is so advised, to move an application for being enlarged on bail and the Court would consider the same on merits wholly uninfluenced by the earlier orders, the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and this judgment. 15. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the order dated September 30, 1983 granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Chandan Singh s/o Ranjit Singh is quashed and set aside and the bond furnished by him is cancelled. We order accordingly.
-
1985 (4) TMI 340 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t for the funds collected. It is true that in 1991, fresh elections were held pursuant to which new management came into office and its term also has expired by afflux of time. As no new elections were conducted, old one is continuing the management. In 1986 when show cause notice was issued, Onkar Singh was the Manager. After the elections, his son Munedra Pal Singh is continuing as the Manager. In other words, the family is in the management of the Committee. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Committee should not be allowed to be in the management of the Institution. Accordingly the Authorised Controller is directed to immediately take over the management of the Institution and set right the running of the Institution on proper lines; then conduct the elections within the period prescribed under the Act and hand over the management to the newly elected body. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 339 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ubtedly a different product from the 'dry fish'. Fish has undergone a change, i.e., fish with or without life and after change alone whether due to exposure to the sun or any other chemical treatment becomes dry fish. In our opinion the decision of the Supreme Court far from lending any support to the learned Government Pleader fortifies our conclusion. 7. In the result the writ appeals are allowed and the impugned notification in so far as the inclusion of the 'dry fish' in Schedule II to the said notification is concerned is quashed. No costs. Advocates' fee ₹ 150/- in each. 8. The learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel of the Agricultural Market Committee make oral applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our opinion no substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be considered by the Supreme Court arises in these cases. The oral request, is therefore rejected. 9. Appeals allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 338 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ptance or sight, or noted for non-acceptance, or protested for non-acceptance, or the event happens, or, where the instrument is a bill of exchange made payable a stated number of months after sight and has been accepted for honour, with the day on which it was so accepted. If the month in which the period would terminate has no corresponding day, the period shall be held to terminate on the last day of such month." It is thus crystal clear that the period of one month next after notice or next after a particular event expires at the end of the corresponding day of the next month and that there is no warrant for the proposition that all the remaining days of the month in which the notice is or the event occurs are to be excluded. As the petitioner failed to pay the arrears of rent before the end of 7th November 1976, she is rightly evicted under S. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 337 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... etition to the original respondents in the petition before the Bhavnagar Court. Hence I propose to direct them to pay the costs accordingly to the original respondents. 33. The Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed, the order passed by the Trial Court holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed before it is hereby set aside and the trial Court having no jurisdiction to entertain that petition, the trial Court is directed to return the petition to the original petitioner for presentation to the proper Court. 34. Respondent No. 1 of this Revision Petition to pay the costs of this Revision Petition to the petitioners in this Revision Petition in one set and to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of this Revision Petition in different sets. 35. Respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) to pay the costs of the original petition of the trial Court to all the respondents of that original petition in different sets. 36. Rule made absolute accordingly. 37. Revision allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 336 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... there are certain amounts of interest shown as due to the plaintiff. We presume that these must have been calculated at the rate of 17 . However, as far as those items are concerned, we do not propose to disturb the same because defendant 3 has not chosen to dispute the correctness of these accounts. As per the said account, the debit balance, as it stood on 31st Mar.1976, in the said account was ₹ 69,149.26, and in our view, the plaintiff would be entitled to interest on that amount at the rate of only 12 per annum from 1st April, 1976 till judgment, viz. to-day, and 6 per annum hereafter till payment. 10. In view of what we have observed above, the impugned judgment is set aside. There will be a decree for the plaintiff against the defendants for a sum of ₹ 69,149.26 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per annum from 14-1976 till to-day and at 6 per annum hereafter till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier. No order as to costs. 11. Appeal allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e. 19. The other questions involved in the case, however, have not been dealt with by the High Court and it rest content by making a bald observation that there is no other point to be decided in this appeal. The objector-respondent had raised a number of pleas to challenge the award giving rise to four issues. It was, therefore, obligatory for the High Court to consider those points unless they had been given up by the objector-respondent. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the respondent had given up those grounds. The case will, therefore, have to be sent back to the High Court for deciding the other issues involved in this case. 20. We accordingly allow the appeal in part and set aside that part of the order by which the High Court remanded the case to the trial court for deciding whether time should be extended. The case is sent back to the High Court for deciding other issues involved. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 334 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... undertrial prisoners should not be taken into account. The Court directed that the cases of the prisoners should be considered by the State Government, both for the purpose of setting off the period of detention undergone by them as undertrial prisoners and for taking into account the remissions earned by them. The order passed by the Court does not discuss the point which arises before us though, the observations made therein are consistent more with the view which we have taken than with the view taken in Kartar Singh. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and the writ petition and direct that, the period of detention undergone by the two accused before us as undertrial prisoners, shall be set off against the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them, subject to the provision contained in section 433A and, provided that order have been passed by the appropriate authority under section 432 or section 433 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Petition and Appeal allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 333 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respondent, which is only one amongst many nationalised bank, would enjoy an undeserved advantage compared to their counterparts in other nationalised banks and even in the Other branches of the respondent bank and may become a cause of disharmony and inequality. Therefore in larger public interest also, the demand for customary bonus otherwise found to be untenable, must be negatived. 10. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case disclosed, we find that the appellants have not succeeded in persuading us to disagree with the findings of the Labour-Court or to satisfy us that the bonus that they received had the characteristic of customary bonus as known to law and that therefore they were entitled to the quantification of that amount under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, on the basis of the existence of a legal right in them. The appeal has, therefore, to fail and is dismissed with out any order as to costs S.R. Appeal dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erting that the respondents do not admit the receipt of any consideration except discharge of duty to the extent of seventeen lakhs and odd. 25. Thus I find that the present application, is wholly not maintainable; and on that score, it deserves to be dismissed; and is accordingly, dismissed with costs. "Speaking in quite general terms for the moment, of contracts to sell land or grant a lease of land at a premium, without reference to the particular language of this document, it is well established that a deposit is demanded and paid on the signing of the contract as an earnest of the purchaser's ability and intention to complete the purchase in due course, The vendor, in the normal case, never intends to be bound by the contract without having the deposit in his own or his stakeholder's possession as a protection against possible loss from default by the purchaser." Goulding J. in Myton Ltd v. Schwab-Morris, (1974) 1 All ER 326, 330 (1974) 1 WLR 331, 336.
-
1985 (4) TMI 331 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... v. CIT 1976 104 ITR 541 (All.). 3. In Devichand Bastimal v. CIT DB IT Reference No. 9 of 1977 and Bhanwar Lal v. CIT DB IT Reference No. 42 of 1977, dated 24-4-1985 we have held that the expenses incurred on food, tea, etc., to the outside constituent customers viz., messing expenses, are not entertainment expenses and are thus not hit by section 37(2B) of the Act. In coming to this conclusion. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) and CIT v. Shah Nanji Nagsi 1979 116 ITR 292 (Bom.) and the other High Courts taking the similar view, were followed and dissent was expressed with the view taken in Veeriah Reddiar's case (supra) which was followed by the Tribunal in its order dated 28-3-1977. 4. For the. reasons mentioned in Devichand Bastimal's case (supra) and Bhanwar Lal's case ( supra), we answer the above-said question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1985 (4) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e and the order of the learned trial Judge is restored for the reasons herein stated. This appeal is allowed accordingly and the matter is remitted to the trial court to proceed further with the suit from the stage where the defence of the present appellant was struck off. The defence will be treated as part of the proceedings and suit shall be proceeded with accordingly. As the matter is delayed for long, we direct that the suit shall be accorded priority by the trial court and shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of this judgment. Mrs. Misra on behalf of the respondent submitted that the respondent has filed a second suit for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. If that is pending the same must be heard along with the suit from which the present appeal arises. We leave the parties to bear their respective costs both in the High Court as well as in this Court. Costs in the trial court will abide the outcome of the suit. Appeal Allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 329 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ake this confession is not available on record. Perhaps, he might have made this statement due to nervousness and old age. I entirely agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that if the ITO had accepted the book results as per the seized books then, perhaps the assessee would not be in a position to resist the penalty. However, as mentioned above, this is not a case as the ITO has estimated the income of the assessee by adopting higher rate of gross profit disregarding the book results as per the seized books. In other words, instead of accepting the book results of the assessee, the ITO estimated higher income of the assessee. Surely, under these circumstances, the assessee’s case could not be brought within the mischief of section 271(1)( c). In this view of the matter, it is not possible to uphold the imposition of penalty imposed by the income-tax authorities in each of the years under appeal. 6. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 328 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sions of rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. The High Court has negatived this challenge. We must frankly confess that the contention canvassed by Mr. Nariman in this behalf would necessitate an in depth examination of the contention. However, we consider it unnecessary in this case to undertake this exercise because the judgment of the High Court is being upheld for the additional reason that the acquisition in this case was mala fide. Therefore, we do not propose to examine the contention under this head. For the reasons which appealed to the High Court and for the additional reasons herein stated, the appeal preferred by the Collector and the District Magistrate and another fails and is dismissed while the appeal on the grant of special leave to the petitioner is hereby partly allowed to the extent herein indicated. Substantially, the Civil Appeal No. 2458 of 1975 fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed and Petition allowed.
........
|
