|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 195 Records
-
1987 (12) TMI 340 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anappa v. State of Mysore 1970 (2) Mys.L.J. 10 the plaintiffs sought for a decree against the defendant in the following terms "(1) The defendant be restrained perpetually from recovering the excise dues under an illegal contract, for retail vend of Narayangud Foreign Liquor for 1954-55, which is not at all enforceable against the plaintiff." It was held that the relief fell under Clause (d) of Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, the plaintiff was at liberty to place his own valuation on the relief, subject only to the condition that if the valuation was below ₹ 250/- the plaintiff was bound to pay a Court fee of ₹ 250/-. It was not a case falling under Section 38 of the Act as there was no question of cancellation of decree or document as in the present case. As such, the decision in Basawannappa's case 1970 (2) Mys.L.J. 10 also has no bearing on the case on hand. 9. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 339 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng medicinal preparations only, even otherwise, the expression "medicinal purposes" contained, in that article has to be construed in the light of the directive principles of state policy of bringing about prohibition of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The medicinal preparations with which we are concerned contain about 24 per cent of alcohol. Anybody can consume it as a liquor for being intoxicated. For the effectiveness of prohibition, the State, in our opinion, must be held to have the power to regulate the possession or consumption of such medicinal preparations containing comparatively high percentage of alcohol under the Excise. Act. A construction to the contrary would defeat the very object of the prohibition and at any rate, not warranted by Article 47 of the Constitution. 7. We, therefore, refer these cases to Constitution Bench for disposal. Let the papers be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary orders.
-
1987 (12) TMI 338 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e person or property of any person. We hold that the 1st respondent was not holding an office of profit when he was a lessee under the Ferries Act just like an Excise contractor or a fair price shop dealer who sells grains supplied by Government is not such a holder of office of profit. 23. In view of the above findings it is not necessary to decide the question whether the lease was subsisting on the date of scrutiny of nomination or not. 24. Thus in any view of the matter it cannot be held that the 1st respondent was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the State Legislature. The rejection of his nomination papers was, therefore, improper. The election of the appellant was, therefore, rightly set aside by the High Court on the ground mentioned in Section 100(1)(c) of the Act. 25. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is dismissed. Having regard to the peculiar features of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs both in this Court and in the High Court.
-
1987 (12) TMI 337 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... charge sheet. After hearing both the sides and referring to the Supreme Court judgment including Balkrishna's case (supra), the Court came to the conclusion that no charge sheet could be filed by the customs officer and only a complaint could be filed and therefore the direction was modified accordingly. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that all the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code cannot be attracted in respect of Narcotics offences investigated by authorised officers of customs, excise and other departments and such authorised officers are not police officers and statements made before them are not inadmissible in evidence and they have no power to file a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is no material about the involvement of the petitioner in narcotics offences. Hence, this is not a fit case where the petitioner can be granted bail Hence the application for bail is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 336 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hashakti Oil Mills v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1972 UPTC 361. The view taken in these decisions is that an excess consumption of electricity may give rise to a suspicion and may call for a deeper scrutiny of the accounts but in the absence of any other material the account books cannot be rejected on suspicion alone. In the instant case, except for the finding that the consumption of electricity was more as compared to the production of rice in the year, no discrepancy was found in production account or in other account books of the assessee. This was also not a good ground for rejecting the assessee's account books. o p /o p 14. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there was no valid material before the Sales Tax Authorities to reject the account books of the assessee. In view of my findings on the first question, the second question becomes academic and need not be dealt with on merits. o p /o p 15. This revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. o p /o p
-
1987 (12) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f another house belonging to the appellant in Ismail Madan Lane and the said house being not vacant. There is, therefore no need for the appeal being remanded for a finding on the question whether alternate suitable accommodation is available for the appellant. 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and will stand allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court will stand restored. However, taking into consideration the time factor that will be required by the respondent to find alternate accommodation for his brother, he is given time till 30th June 1988 to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession subject to the condition the respondent files the usual undertaking before this Court on or before 31.1.1988 agreeing to pay the rent, past as well as future and to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession within the time given and also not to induct anyone else into possession in the leased portion. There will be no order as to cost.
-
1987 (12) TMI 334 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... izes or gifts. Therefore, any scheme or arrangement in which a person agrees to lose or made to part a portion of his payment against the chance of getting any prize or gift, should be considered as prize chit falling within the inclusive definition under Section 2(e). From the above discussion, and in the light of the principles to which we have called attention the scheme of the company is nothing but prize chit as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and the action of the Registrar of firms deserves to be upheld. In the result, we allow the appeal with costs and set aside the L judgment and order of the High Court. Before parting with the case we may, however, observe that the Registrar of the Firms while taking action against the persons or firms under the Act will take care to see that the members of the scheme are not denied of their contributions or prizes which they are legitimately entitled to, if the prize chit is allowed to run for the full term . Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ime has been afforded to the prosecution, I am not inclined to consider his application at this stage here, but I make it clear that the accused will be entitled to move the learned Magistrate at proper stages and the prosecution will also be entitled to ask for the remand and the learned Magistrate will deal with these applications on merits and in accordance with law in that behalf. 17. Accordingly, as far as Criminal Application No. 2291 of 1987 is concerned the Rule is discharged and Criminal Application No. 2316 of 1987 by the State is concerned, the Rule is made absolute and the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade Bombay, dated 27th October, 1987 releasing the accused on bail is quashed and set aside. I am making it clear that the learned Magistrate will also consider on its own merits and in accordance with law any application by the accused persons made for committing them to judicial custody instead of police custody.
-
1987 (12) TMI 332 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ide the question upon taking evidence or by affidavits as to whether there has in fact been such satisfaction of the claim and pass a decree in accordance with order XXIII, r. 3 of the Code. In any event, the present case clearly does not come within the ambit of the second part of order XXIII, r. 3 of the Code. Under the terms of the proposed compromise, the appellant was required to pay ₹ 2,25,000 by a bank draft on March 17, 1987, but the fact remains that the respondent before the due date resiled from the proposed compromise saying that it was detrimental to his interest. That being so, the appellant could only fall back on the first part. But in the absence of an agreement in writing, the learned Judges had no other alternative but to direct that the appeal be listed for hearing on merits. In the result, the appeal must fail and is dismissed. The High Court is directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 331 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... authorities on the fact and circumstances which are identical to the one obtaining in the instant case with which we fully concur. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no justification of making any addition in the manner made by the ITO or sustained by the CIT (A). We would therefore direct the ITO to accept the assessee's cost of construction at ₹ 3,27,728 and modify the assessment accordingly. In this view of the matter, we delete the addition as sustained by the CIT (A). The ITO is, therefore, directed to modify the assessment accordingly. 11. Before we part with this order, it may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the assessee had not pressed ground No. 7 taken up in the memo of appeal regarding certain small disallowances made under various head. We would, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT (A) on this point. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and that filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case. In the present case, however, we do not find that the revised policy of the Chandigarh administration suffers from any act of arbitrariness either in classifying the appellants as a separate group or in considering them for allotment of smaller sites in phase I. The appellants formed a separate class. All the persons who have applied for industrial sites for establishing printing presses were grouped together. They were considered together. They could not have been accommodated in phase II for want of enough sites. So another lay out was formed in phase I. We are told that most of the applicants have now been allotted sites and they have since taken possession. The appellants were also allotted sites in phase I. We are, therefore. Of the opinion that the grievance of the appellants about discrimination is not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... restored to service. The appellant would have become entitled to the normal relief available in such a situation. He should be deemed to be in service and we do not agree with Dr. Anand Prakash that his suspension should continue. His suspension which had merged into dismissal has been vacated. It shall, however, be open for the employer to make any direction as is deemed appropriate in that behalf in future. The appellant, therefore, becomes entitled to the salary for the past period subject to his satisfying the authorities that he has not earned any other income during that period. The appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity by the enquiring officer to meet the charges and the enquiry shall be completed with in four months. The appellant has personally assured us in Court that he will fully cooperate in the enquiry. The enquiry officer shall allow inspection to the appellant of all records relevant to the enquiry. We make no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.
-
1987 (12) TMI 328 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lish word (See Longman's Dictionary of the English Language, Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman-Lax icon- Contemporary English). Defendants say that 'STAYFREE' is a colloquial word. I am making reference to these arguments as considerable time was spent by learned counsel for the parties in arguing this question and for the present I will leave the matter here itself without expressing any opinion. In , view of the conclusions reached above that there is no likelihood of confusion and deception, in my opinion, it is not necessary to decide these questions which would, of course, be decided during the course of the trial of the suit pending on the original side of this court. Accordingly, I express no opinion on the aforesaid questions including the question that the ' is distinctive or descriptive. The result is that I would confirm the order of the learned single Judge and dismiss the appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 327 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o be suited for that State, that would be no ground for judging the arbitrariness or unreasonableness of a particular legislation in question by comparson. What may be the problem in Madras may not be the problem inPunjab. It must however, be borne in mind that the Act in question was passed in 1949 and it pegged the rent prevalent in the similar houses in 1938 and as such is not unreasonable per se. The rises stated tremendously after the end of the Second World War after the partition of the country. In that view of the matter, we can not say that per se there is unreasonableness in fixing the prices in 1938 level. Having regard to the specific preamble of the Act we find nothing unreasonable in the Scheme contemplated under Section 4 of the present Act. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the challenge to Section 4 on the grounds advanced before us must fail and it is accordingly rejected. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 326 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emption of mortgage the lessees can claim the benefit of Rent Act was considered by the Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in 1984 (R.L.R., 709) and the High Court following the decisions of the Supreme Court has answered that "Tenant of the mortgagee in possession is not entitled to the protection of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 against the mortgagor after redemption of the mortgage." We fully agree with this view. There is specific finding by all the courts below in the suit for redemption that the letting out of the premises to the tenant appellant by the mortgagees is not a prudent act done in the ordinary course of the management. This finding being not challenged became final. The mortgagor- landlord is entitled to get recovery of possession. We, therefore, affirm the judgment and order of the High Court and dismiss the appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. S.L. Appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 325 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e will be no order as to costs. 3. The appellants are given time to vacate the premises in question till 30.6.88 upon filing the following usual undertaking within four weeks from today. If the rooms are locked, keys will be handed over at the time of delivery of the possession to the Trial Court. 1. That the Appellants will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before 30.6.88 from today. 2. That the Appellants will pay to respondent future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before 10th of every month. 3. That the Appellants will pay to the respondent arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today. 4. That the Appellants will not induct any other person in the suit premises. It is further directed that in default of compliance with any one or more of these conditions or if the undertaking is not filed as required within the stipulated time, the decree shall become executable forthwith.
-
1987 (12) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... much more than ₹ 9,000/- does not appear to have been seriously argued before the Division Bench of the High Court at all because no such argument has been considered at all by the Bench and there is no statement in the grounds of appeal, specifically recording that such an argument was advanced in the High Court but the Division Bench failed to deal with it. In our view, the conclusions of the Trial Court in this regard are perfectly justified. 10. As far as question of possession is concerned, both the courts below have considered the evidence in this connection and have come to the conclusion that after the execution of the sale deed it is the defendant who has been in possession of the property. We do not find anything faulty in the manner in which the courts below have appreciated the evidence and in view of this, we are not inclined to interfere with their findings in this regard. 11. In the result, there is no merit in the Appeal and it is dismissed with costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at would be a matter of grave consequence. In that view of the matter we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court in this case. In the facts and circumstances of this particular case and the features mentioned hereinbefore, we declined to refer the matter to the Constitution Bench. We must note that the award inasmuch as the interest which had been awarded is set aside to the extent that the award of interest from the commencement of the proceedings before the Arbitrator to the date of the award. Subject to this modification the special leave petition is dismissed. The award will stand modified by deletion of interest for that period namely from the commencement of reference before the arbitrator to the date of award. This is in consonance with the views expressed by this Court in the case of Executive Engineer Irrigation Galimala and Ors. v. Abaaduta Jena, 1987 2 Scale 675. The special leave Petition is dismissed as indicated before. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 322 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ber 1, 1977. The facts that the machinery worth Rs. 87,85,492.94 was purchased and erected during the year 1977-78 and electricity service connection was obtained for the unit on September 1, 1977, clearly establish that the industrial unit was made ready to function as a manufacturing organisation only after December 17, 1976. Therefore, no doubt can be entertained that the respondentindustrial unit was set up within the meaning of that expression used in G.O. Ms. No. 606, Revenue (S), dated April 9, 1981, only after December 17, 1976. If that is so, it is entitled to claim exemption from the payment of sales tax on the products it produced for a period of five years from December 1, 1977, the date on which it went into regular production as certified by the Director of Industries. For the reasons stated above, we see no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The tax revision cases, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 321 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sh). Those decisions have laid down the principles under which civil court can entertain a suit. Considering the decision reported in 1968 22 STC 416 (SC) AIR 1969 SC 78 (Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh), the Full Bench in ILR (1975) Cut 789 (Magulu Jal v. Bhagaban Rai) has laid down the principle for the scope of a suit even where the jurisdiction of the civil court is specifically or impliedly barred. To make out such a case to come within the said principle, necessary averments are to be made in the pleading. Mr. Mohanty has not been able to indicate any such pleading. Accordingly, on my finding that there is adequate machinery for the purpose of mitigating the grievance of an assessee in relation to getting back the amount of rebate to which he is entitled to under section 13(8) of the Act, no suit would lie. Section 22 would be a specific bar for the purpose. 7.. In the result, the appeal is allowed. However, parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed. nbsp
........
|
