|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 181 Records
-
1988 (10) TMI 289 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vations of His Lordship Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. set out above while repelling a similar contention advanced by Mr. Tarkunde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in that case. 28. In the view I have taken that the Bills Exchange in question formed a separate and independent contract and, therefore, the suit for injunction on the basis of non-performance of the main contract will not lie in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do riot think it is necessary to consider the other substantial questions of law even though arguments were advanced by the learned counsel on both sides. 29. In the result, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff, namely, O.S, No. 6589 of 1982, on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is dismissed. Consequently Second Appeal No. 1089 of 1984 is allowed and Second Appeal No. 1510 of 1984 is dismissed. However, I make no order as to costs in both the second appeals.
-
1988 (10) TMI 288 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sal of access to a friend to represent his case. In the instant case, since the Advisory Board has heard the high ranking officers of the Police Department and others on behalf of the Government and detaining authority, it ought to have permitted the detenu to have the assistance of a friend who could have made an equally effective representation on his behalf. Since that has been denied to the detenu, the High Court, in our opinion, was justified in quashing the detention order. It was, however, sought to be made out for the State that the police officers were present before the Board only to produce the record and they did not do anything further. But the record shows otherwise. The officers were not there only to produce the records. They were in fact heard by the Advisory Board obviously on the merits of the matter and that makes all the difference in the instant case. In the result, we agree with the conclusion of the High Court and dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 287 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in coming to that conclusion. We have examined the facts and considered the submissions of the appellant. We have considered the matter. In view of the rule and the facts found by the Tribunal, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be challenged. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s. Therefore, there was no question of retrospective operation to take away vested right. We are, however, of the opinion that it would be an exercise in futility if the application is dismissed on this ground, it can be filed again and in view of the subsequent legislation as noted hereinbefore it was bound to succeed on this point. In exercise of our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution, it would not be proper to interfere in the facts and circumstances of the case on this ground. In the premises in view of the ratio of the decision of this Court in Jaisingh case and reason mentioned hereinbefore this contention urged on behalf of the respondent must be rejected. In our opinion the ratio of this case squarely applies to the facts of the case in C. A. No. 6944 of 1983. 33. We are therefore unable to accept any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs.
-
1988 (10) TMI 285 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Hand Book of Import and Export Procedure for 1985-86, entitling the petitioners for grant of Import Licence in the name of the petitioners for direct import of 10,000 metric tonnes of re-rollable scrap as the petitioners were entitled to import as on 30th June, 1987, on the basis of their registered requirements, within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of this order, and the respondent No. 4 is directed to issue import licence accordingly in the name of the petitioner No. 1 for direct import of 10,000 metric tonnes of re-rollable scrap as per policy prevailing as on 30th June, 1987, within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of the 'No Objection Certificate' in this behalf. 17. The writ petition succeeds to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. As prayed for, let the plain copy of the operating portion of the order, countersigned by an officer of this Court, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties.
-
1988 (10) TMI 284 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... SCR365 in the context of claim for privilege in regard to Section 123 of Evidence Act, which have no direct bearing, is also effectively answered in the light of the foregoing discussion as the 'Public Interest' aspect is also taken care of. In the ultimate analysis, it is not possible to sustain the plea of the petitioners, which is rooted in the mistrust of the court itself, that the provision is unreasonable and arbitrary. There is also another dimension of the issue. Section 172 embodies a composite scheme. The duty cast under Clause (1) and the rider added by Clause(13) thereof from integral part of the scheme. Clause (3) cannot be struck down in isolation whilst retaining Clause (1). The legislature in its wisdom has cast this obligation only subject to the rider. Clause (3) cannot be viewed in isolation. Under the circumstances, we concur with the view of the High Court and repulse the challenge. These are the reasons which impelled us to dismiss the petitions.
-
1988 (10) TMI 283 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed appellants with the crime with which they are charged That being the state of affairs of evidence, we do not propose to say anything on the nature of the charge framed against each of the accused appellants. Suffice it to observe this much only that without the aid of Section 120B, on the basis of materials collected in the investigation, it may not have been possible even to put them on trial. In the premises aforesaid, we have no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to bring home to the accused the offence not only of Section 302, IPC, but even of Section 201 IPC inasmuch as we have held as tainted the evidence of seizure in respect of articles said to have been recovered at the instance of the four appellants. In the result, the Reference is rejected. All the three appeals are allowed. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other offence.
-
1988 (10) TMI 282 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be set aside. This decision is not of much assistance in the case before us as it is not the contention of Mr. Bhandare that the award is bad on the ground of any misconduct of the arbitrator but on the ground that it discloses an error of law on the face of the record. Moreover, our attention has not been drawn to any particular document which was essential to resolve the controversy between the parties nor has it been demonstrated that any such document was not taken into account by the arbitrator. In view of this, there is no basis to support the contention of Mr. Bhandare which must be rejected. It cannot be even said in this case that the arbitrator was guilty of any legal misconduct or otherwise . The objections to the Award of Shri A.C. Gupta, therefore, fail and are dismissed. There will be a judgment in terms of the Award. Let the decree be drawn up accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs to the hearing before us.
-
1988 (10) TMI 281 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ority would not have said that it has also relied on this set of documents. There was nothing to prevent the detaining authority from stating that these documents were also placed before it but they were not relied upon. However, that type of statement could only be made if the detaining authority had really applied its mind. This clearly goes to show that the application of mind in the present case is totally casual and mechanical and it is not the type of the application of mind which the law insists upon. If the detaining authority says that it has also relied on a set of documents which provided no evidence against the detenu, it naturally follows that he has not cared to go into the material. On this short ground, therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in the present case is vitiated. The petition is allowed, the rule is made absolute and the detention order is quashed. The detenu shall be released forthwith unless required in some other case.
-
1988 (10) TMI 280 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pproval and follows CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. 1980 121 ITR 747 (All). It has been shown to us by reference to 1982 135 ITR (St) 110 (Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (S. L. P. (Civil) 10498 of 1980)), that the said Allahabad decision is under appeal to the Supreme Court. To protect the applicant we make the rule absolute. Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.
-
1988 (10) TMI 279 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... claimants to adduce evidence in support of the valuation of the property proposed to be acquired and without giving sufficient consideration to the material placed before him. It would be safer in such cases to rely upon the statute for guidance as regards the maximum time that can be taken to make an award, instead of proceeding to strike down acquisition proceedings on the ground of delay in making the awards by applying varying standards to different cases even though the maximum time of two years has not been exceeded. The very fact that Section 11-A has prescribed the period of two years from the date of the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 as the maximum period within which the award can be made suggests that the time taken by the Land Acquisition Officer in this case to make the award cannot be considered to be fatal to the acquisition proceeding. 7. We, therefore, affirm the decision of the High Court and reject this Special Leave Petition.
-
1988 (10) TMI 278 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dure, leave to sue the plaintiff for damages on account of groundless and illegal threats. From the above discussion it follows that this application has also to meet the same fate as 1.A. 1989/88. (11) The expression of opinion in this order, while considering I.A. 4226/87, is only prima facie and will not affect the rights and contentions of the parties on the merits of the subject matter in suit. (12) For the reasons stated above I allow I.A. 4226/87, and dismiss 1.As. 1989 and 1990/88. The defendant, its servants, agents, stockists, dealers and other persons acting on its behalf are restrained from using the trade mark 'Trevicol' in respect of Synthetic Resin Adhesive or any other trade mark similar thereto till the decision of the suit. They are also restrained from using impugned containers or any other identical or deceptively similar containers till the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff will also be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 2500.00 .
-
1988 (10) TMI 277 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eposited the rent. The appellant is guilty of contumacious conduct and has wilfully not complied with the order made under Section 15(1) and thus, there could be no occasion for the Rent Control Tribunal to have set aside the order of the Controller striking out the defence of the appellant in both the eviction cases. ( 18. ) No other point has been urged. The orders of eviction are well based because on merits it is not disputed that the notices of demand were duly served on the appellant. The appellant failed to either deposit or tender the arrears of rent within two months of the service of notices of demand. No reply was sent to the notices of demand. The ground of non-payment of rent was well made out and the appellant did not care to enjoy the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by complying with the order made under Section 15(1) of the said Act. ( 19. ) I , hence, dismiss both the appeals with costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 500.00 in each appeal.
-
1988 (10) TMI 276 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gn corporation owning the ship does not reside in the place visited by the ship unless the test of residence is satisfied namely, that the corporation has an office at a fixed place where it carries on through its agents or servants its own business for a substantial period of time. The Plaintiff has no such case and there is no such evidence. Neither corporation has had at any time an office of its own in India where it carried on its own business. ' ( 22. ) At no time was either of the two foreign corporations a resident here. These corporations were never present here and were, therefore, never absent from this country. The suit was therefore barred by limitation. The learned Judge rightly held so. Applying the test adopted by the Supreme Court in T.M. and Co. v. H.I. Trust Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 1311, S. 15(5) of the Limitation Act has, in our view, no application to the facts of the case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed We make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 275 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... requisite legislative authority in regard to "any other matter not enumerated in List 11 or List 111 including any tax not mentioned in either of those lists". It has not been shown that any of the entries in List 11 or List 111 would be attracted to the subject-matter of speedy eviction of unauthorised occupations from properties belonging to a Government Company wherein Central Government has more than 51 of the paid-up share capital. The source of authority can thus in any case be traced to Entry 97 read with Entry 95 of the Constitution of India. o p /o p In any view of the matter therefore it is futile to contend that Parliament had no legislative competence in this behalf. We therefore concur with the conclusion reached by the High Court in L.S. Nair’s case (supra) and repel the challenge unhesitatingly. o p /o p The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. The interim order will stand vacated. No costs. o p /o p R.S.S. Petition dismissed. o p /o p
-
1988 (10) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and a conveyance adds to his mobility. We are of the view that this benefit should be admissible to the employees. The Society shall, therefore, create an appropriate fund either to be operated through every college or through such method as may be found convenient for entertaining claims for house construction loan and loans for purchase of scooter, car etc. as may be admissible in terms of the scheme to be framed. We direct that the further benefits which we have granted by our present order should be made available to the employees by the end of 31st March, 1989. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Before we part, we would like to place on record that learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent No. 1 had candidly stated in Court that if over PG NO 408 and above what the Board of Governors had decided to sanction, if this Court was of the view that some more benefits should be given, the same may be ordered.
-
1988 (10) TMI 273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ation in lieu of the levy under section 4. The new sections 5-A and 5-B are not only legal and valid but also reasonable. The amending Act was brought only after duly considering the advantageous position of the permanent theatres over touring cinemas. The petitioner has to pay tax at the prescribed rates only and the special concessions to pay at the lower rate cannot be given. The petitioner has not made out any case for invoking article 226 of the Constitution. In Odion Mani Tiraiarangam v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 96 LW 338 as well as in the decision dated 23rd December, 1980, rendered in Writ Petition No. 1296 of 1978, this Court has upheld the validity of sections 5-A and 5-B of the Act. It is only after a careful consideration of all relevant factors, the rate of tax is fixed by the Government. There is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 272 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to ground No. VII, have admitted in their return that rate of sales tax on sales of cycles was reduced from 8 per cent to 6 per cent by the notification referred to above. That being so, the respondents were absolutely incorrect and unjustified in subjecting the petitioner to the tax at the rate of 8 per cent. The respondents should have levied sales tax at the rate of 6 per cent. 5.. In the result, the petition partly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order of the revisional court, respondent No. 2, (annexure H) is quashed and the ex parte assessment orders passed by respondent No. 1, Sales Tax Officer, Scrutiny Cell, Flying Squad, Satna, is modified to the extent that he shall calculate the sales tax at the rate of 6 per cent on the said assessment and impose proportionate penalty accordingly. The department shall pay a sum of Rs. 250 as costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Writ petition partly allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... adu subject to the conditions that the raw materials specified in item 4 of the said Schedule to the said Act out of which the end-products are manufactured have suffered tax under the said Act and that the dealers do not collect tax either directly or indirectly or make provision in the balance sheet to pay sales tax under outstanding expenses and get income-tax relief. 2.. The notification hereby made shall come into force on and from the 1st April, 1982. On a careful reading of the above, I am of the view that the scraps that are left during the course of the manufacture of shaped and finished products by utilising the scraps purchased as raw materials after paying the sales tax do come under the definition of end-products in the above notification. Under these circumstances, the proceedings of the respondent in TNGST 415579/80-81 resulting in garnishee notice in form B6 dated 20th August, 1983, are set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 270 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... carried on by the petitioner does not render it a dealer within the meaning of the Act. But, the respondent-Deputy Commercial Tax Officer has totally ignored this position. In East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta AIR 1962 SC 1893, the Supreme Court has pointed out that law declared by the High Court is binding on the lower courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction. The respondent-Deputy Commercial Tax Officer exercising quasi-judicial functions is bound by the aforesaid decision of this Court and his failure to follow the same invites the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. I therefore uphold the maintainability of this writ petition. 11.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the respondent in his TNGST No. 719976/86-87 dated 15th February, 1988, levying sales tax on the petitioner for the assessment year 1986-87 is quashed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
........
|
