|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 202 Records
-
1988 (1) TMI 365 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h embraces limitations and restrictions on all incidental matters connected with the right to trade or business under the existing licence. Rule 12(3) regulated entry to different classes to the cinema hall and it was within the rule making power of the State Government to frame such rule. The court further held that fixing limit of rate of admission was an absolute necessity in the interest of the general public and the restriction so placed was reasonable and in public interest. On these findings the court upheld the validity of the rule. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 15. In the result we are of the opinion that Rule 41-A is intra vires the Act as it carries out the purposes of the Act and it does not place any unreasonable restriction in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We are in agreement with the majority opinion of the High Court. Accordingly the appeals as well as the writ petitions are dismissed with costs.
-
1988 (1) TMI 364 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the interests of the B.P.T. and to put it in the same position as if it had sold the said vessel itself under its powers under the Act. In permitting the said vessel to be sold by the Sheriff, the B.P.T. did not forgo its lien thereon or its right to have the sale proceeds applied towards the satisfaction of its dues in priority to all other claims thereon. 21. The B.P.T., in acting as it did, followed an established Admiralty practice which is of immense advantage to all those who have claims upon a vessel, for it ensures a sale thereof, at a fair price, by and under the direction of the Admiralty Court. 22. The B. P. T. is entitled to be paid the amount of its claim, being ₹ 9,10,031.25, out of the sale proceeds of the said vessel lying in Court in priority to any other claim thereto. If the sale proceeds have been invested, the B. P. T. is entitled to the payment of the proportionate accrued interest. 23. The notice of motion is dismissed. 24. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (1) TMI 363 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... For the present we are not expressing any opinion on the matter except to point out that there is a specific provision in the Legal Practitioner's (Fees) Act setting out that legal Practitioners would also be liable for being sued by their clients if they have been negligent in the performance of their professional duties. The nature of the controversy in this appeal, as we have stated at the outset itself, does not pertain to these questions. In conclusion, since we find that the question whether the suit has abated or not can be answered only after the nature of the suit is determined on the basis of the materials placed and the evidence adduced by the parties, the appeal has to be dismissed. The suit will stand restored to the file of Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the guidelines given by us. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 362 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Ministry of Environment of the Government of India to give a serious consideration to the above suggestion. What we have stated above applies mutatis mutandis to all other Mahapalikas and Municipalities which have jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows. Copies of this judgment shall be sent to all such Nagar Mahapalikas and Municipalities. The case against the Nagar Mahapalikas and Municipalities in the state of Uttar Pradesh shall stand adjourned by six months. Within that time all the Nagar Mahapalikas and Municipalities in the State of Uttar Pradesh through whose areas the river Ganga flows shall file affidavits in this Court explaining the various steps they have taken for the prevention of pollution of the water in the river Ganga in the light of the above judgment. The case as against the several industries in the State of Uttar Pradesh which are located on the banks of the river Ganga will he taken up for hearing on the 9th of February, 1988.
-
1988 (1) TMI 361 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nhaiya Lal other remaining 10 would have shared the wasted votes. On these facts even on the basis of Chedi Ram's case it is not possible to draw any inference or act on probability and to record a finding that the majority of wasted votes would have gone to Roshan Lal in such a way as to affect the result of the appellant's election. In the circumstances, the findings recorded by the High Court that the result of the election of the appellant was materially affected is not sustainable in law. 13. In the result, we hold that the election petitioners have failed to prove that the result of the election of the appellant was materially affected on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination paper of Kanhaiya Lal. Therefore, the election of the returned candidate could not be declared void. We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, uphold the appellant's election and dismiss the election petitions with costs throughout.
-
1988 (1) TMI 360 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w to maintain a suit to prevent the proposed sale. The principle that an injunction can be granted for preventing waste by a manager or karta obviously would not be applicable to such a suit because the proposed alienation for an alleged need or the benefit of the estate cannot be said to be an act of waste by any stretch of reasoning. We are, therefore, of the considered view that a coparcener has no right to maintain a suit for permanent injunction restraining the manager or the karta from alienating the coparcenary property and his right is only to challenge the same and to recover the property after it has come into being. 30. From the above discussion of the principles of Hindu Law and in the light of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, I think, therefore, there ought to be no hesitation on my part to dismiss this appeal and I dismiss the same with cost. 1 Name of the Appellant as per SCR/Judis is Sushil, however some journals are reporting the appellant as Sunil
-
1988 (1) TMI 359 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act and Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the appellants have tried to support an order based on a similar rule not only before the learned single Judge but also in appeal before us on the technical ground of maintainability of the petition. We fail to understand how it would advance the interest of the first appellant Company if the respondent employee is relegated to a suit or asked to approach the Delhi or the Calcutta High Court if the fate of the litigation stands concluded by the aforesaid decision of the supreme Court. In fact without making it a prestige issue if the appellants had taken a timely decision that would not have been required to pay salary and allowances to the employee without taking work from him atleast for the period subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court. 21. These were the only submissions made on behalf of the appellants as we do not find merit in any of them, we dismiss this appeal with costs.
-
1988 (1) TMI 358 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... desire to be heard. Notice to individual members of a co - operative society as a body corporate and is, therefore, unnecessary. We do not consider it necessary to further elaborate on the matter except to point out that a member who objects to the proposed a amalgamation within the prescribed time is given, by section 31 (11), the option to walk out, as it were, by withdrawing his share, deposits or loans as the case may be." (emphasis supplied) 9. That being the position, a member of the clun loses his individuality qua the clun and has no independent rights except those given to him by the statues and bye - laws of the clun and he musts speak through the club only. 10. Since the petitioner has no locus stand to maintain this petition, the other contentions raised in the writ petition need not be gone into and the same are left open. 11. For the reasons stated above, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 357 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uted that the place where the present accident occurred was a public place within the meaning of Section 95 We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Tribunal and hold that the 1st respondent Insurance Company is equally liable to pay compensation to the respondent-claimants as ascertained by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order for costs. 28. At the request of Mr. Singh, the learned advocate appearing for the 1st respondent Insurance Company, the execution and operation of this order as against the Insurance Company, is stayed for a period of eight weeks from today. 29. Mr. Singh applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case involves an important question of law of general importance and since there is a difference of opinion on the question between different High Courts, it needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence we grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.
-
1988 (1) TMI 356 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court in National Cotton Mills v. Asst. Registrar of Companies 1984 56 Comp. Cas 222 accepting the view of the single judge of the same court in Ajit Kumar Sarkar v. Asst. Registrar of Companies 1979 49 Comp Cas 909, and held that the failure to file annual returns under section 159 of the Act and balance-sheet under section 220 of the Act punishable under section 162 of the act are continuing offences. The decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, referred to above, relied on by the learned Magistrate, therefore, cannot be accepted. It therefore, follows that the offence under section 113 of the Act is a continuing offence. 17. In view of the above findings, neither of the grounds put forward by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, can be legally sustained. The petition is allowed and the order of dismissal is set aside and the complaint is sent back to the trial court for disposal according to law.
-
1988 (1) TMI 355 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re cogent materials for thinking that the detenu might be released then these should have been made apparent. Etemal vigilance on the part of the authority charged with both law and order and public order is the price which the democracy in this country extracts from the public officials in order to protect the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. " There is, to our mind, nothing in these two decisions which runs counter to the decision in Alijan Mian’s case (supra). In the instant case, there was no material made apparent on record that the detenu, if released on bail, is likely to commit activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order appears to have been made merely on the ground that the detenu is trying to come but on bail and there is enough possibility of his being bailed out. We do not think that the order of detention could be justified only on that basis. These were the reasons upon which we quashed the order of detention.
-
1988 (1) TMI 354 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... t practice and once it is accepted that the method is cost or market price whichever is lower then if an item of stocks is not reliable or not realing the value, then it goes to establish that the market price is lower than what is expected of it by the assessee. This is also established by the fact that this very item was sold only for ₹ 34,000 after waiting for another those years for just ₹ 34,000 as against ₹ 32,000 adopted by the assessee. This is also indicative that the assessee's method of valuation is keeping in line with the system regularly followed. Therefore, we delete the addition made on account of valuation of closing stock. 18. The next issue in the appeal of the assessee is regarding claim under s. 80J, which has not been pressed by the assessee before us and accordingly it is treated as dismissed for having been withdrawn. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and both the departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Notification of the Andhra Pradesh Government & Karnataka State
Held that:- Writ petition has to succeed. Variation of the rate of inter-State sales tax does affect free trade and commerce and creates a local preference which is contrary to the scheme of Part XIII of the Constitution. The notification extends the benefit even to unregistered dealers thus both the notifications of the Andhra Pradesh Government are, therefore, bad and are hit by the provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution. They cannot be sustained in law.
Now coming to the notification of the Karnataka State, we have already pointed out that no return has been made and no attempt has been made, therefore, to place facts and circumstances to justify the action. The notification suffers from the same vice as the second notification of the State of Andhra Pradesh suffers and no distinction can be drawn. Thus the notification of the Karnataka Government is also bad in law. It may be pointed out that the rate of sales tax in Karnataka is 19.5 per cent in regard to intra-State sales.
-
1988 (1) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... irections regarding the manner in which the purchase price should be paid by the appellant Special Leave Petitions 204 & 205 have to fail because it has been concurrently found that the sheds occupied by the respondent in each case were included in the property leased to the petitioner though possession was allowed to be retained by the respondents, and as such the respondents are entitled to claim Kudikidappu rights under Explanation II-A of Section 2(25) of the Act As the respondents had been inducted into possession of the huts by the owner of the land and as the lease granted to the petitioner comprised the sheds occupied by the respondents also, the petitioner cannot contend that the respondents are not entitled to seek the sale of ten cents of land adjoining each hut under Section 80B of the Act. Hence the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the appeals as well as the special leave petitions. Appeals and Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al story appears also to be absolutely unnatural as according to him, he did not know anyone of these accused persons but a month before the incident they took him into confidence and told him to join them. After reading the evidence of the witnesses as a whole apparently the impression created is that the version does not appear to be natural version. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the testimony is not such which inspires confidence. Apart from it as there is no corroboration at all from any other independent circumstance or source of evidence therefore the conviction of the appellants could not be maintained. It is rather unfortunate that the appeal has come up for hearing after a long time and ultimately it is found that there is no evidence to sustain the conviction. The appeals are there- A fore allowed. The sentence and conviction passed against both the accused are set aside. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith. P.S.S. P.S.S. Appeals allowed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ending vessel concerned. Confiscation of the vessel is the immediate statutory consequence of the finding that an offence either under Section 10 or 11 or 12 has been proved and its master has been convicted. Section 13 is thus mandatory and it is not open to the court as soon as the masters of the vessel is convicted of an offence under Section 12 and is awarded penalty to refrain from making an order confiscating the offending vessel. For the reasons aforesaid we dismiss all these appeals and affirm the judgments and orders of the High Court. The vessels have been detained in Bombay Port after apprehending them on July 26, 1984 and a huge amount has to be paid as port charges. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Port Authorities at Bombay may consider if an application is made by the parties for exemption or partial exemption of the same favourably in view of the order of confiscation of the trawlers. There will be no order for costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 349 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... D.S. Nakara's case (supras to the liability of the Government to pay gratuity on retirement. We respectfully agree with the views expressed in those decisions. It is also not shown that the Government notification in question either expressly or by necessary implication directs that those who had retired prior to 1.1.1973 would be entitled to any additional amount by way of gratuity. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in upholding that gratuity was payable in accordance with the Government Notification No. 33/12/73- AIS(ii) dated 24.1.1975 to all those members of the All India Services who had retired prior to 1.1.1973. The Judgment of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent indicated above. We make a declaration that the members of the All India services who had retired prior to 1.1.1973 are not entitled to claim gratuity on the basis of the Notification referred to above. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT
Whether it is appropriate for the High Court to interfere with an election process at an intermediate stage after the commencement of the election process and before the declaration of the result of the election held for the purpose of filling a vacancy in the office of the Chairman of a Panchayat Union under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 on the ground that there was an error in the matter of allotment of symbols to the candidates contesting at such election?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The parties who are aggrieved by the result of the election can question the validity of election by an election petition which is an effective alternative remedy. We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing the Errata Notification allotting the symbol 'hand' to the appellant by its judgment under appeal. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed in the High Court. The Returning officer shall proceed with the election in accordance with law from the stage at which it was interrupted by the order of the High Court
-
1988 (1) TMI 347 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... registered dealers whose identity could be established and that it The judgment is printed here incorporating the modification indicated by Ramanujulu Naidu and Y.V. Anjaneyulu, JJ, in their order dated February 23, 1988-Ed. is for them to pay the sales tax and not for the petitioner who made the purchases from the respective dealers. We are in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not necessary for the petitioner to further establish that the sellers of the raw material actually paid the sales tax provided that there is acceptable evidence regarding the purchases effected and the identity of the sellers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner might be granted two weeks from today, to file objections to the notice impugned in the writ petition and the same is granted. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Writ petition disposed of.
-
1988 (1) TMI 346 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it is accordingly dismissed. C.R.P. No. 4410 of 1981 The civil revision petition is filed against the order dismissing the review petition filed by the plaintiffs. After the judgment of the learned single Judge holding that the suit is not maintainable, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed an application to review that order on the ground that an letters patent appeal is pending. The same was dismissed, against which the present civil revision petition is filed. In view of the fact that the letters patent appeal is now disposed of holding that the suit is not maintainable, this civil revision petition has necessarily to be dismissed. In the result, both the letters patent appeal and the civil revision petition are dismissed with costs. It is represented that appeals are pending against the assessment orders. The appellate authority shall consider whether the view taken by the primary authority is correct or not. Letters patent appeal and revision petition dismissed.
........
|
