|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 268 Records
-
1989 (8) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to give evidence so long as it is not necessary. It is also expected that where the facts are so clear it is expected that unnecessary harassment of the members of the medical profession either by way of request for adjournments or by cross-examination should be avoided so that the apprehension that the men in the medical profession have which prevents them from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost, is removed and a citizen needing the assistance of a man in the medical profession receives it. 17. We would also like to mention that whenever on such occasions a man of the medical profession is approached and if he finds that whatever assistance he could give is not sufficient really to save the life of the person but some better assistance is necessary it is also the duty of the man in the medical profession so approached to render all the help which he could and also see that the person reaches the proper expert as early as possible.
-
1989 (8) TMI 377 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e territorial jurisdiction of which Bhadohi is situated. I am of the view that this criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner at New Delhi could not be so filed for want of jurisdiction. Clearly if the complaint is filed by a party against another at a place which has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. I am of the view that it amounts to abuse of process of the Court. The Court should not be made an instrument of compelling a party to come to a place far away from his own place, to submit to the jurisdiction of a court which actually has none. I am. therefore. of the view that the proceedings instituted by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in the shape of a criminal complaint under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and the summoning of the petitioner by the trial court are without jurisdiction and there is no alternative but to quash such proceedings. The proceedings. Therefore, pending before the learned trial court are quashed.
-
1989 (8) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ;3' stands referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana at Ambala for passing arbitration award in accordance with law; (iii) The reference made under Section 10(1) of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal is quashed; and (iv) The management shall withdraw the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal and the Writ Petition pending in the High Court within three weeks from today failing which the High Court shall dispose them of as having become infructuous. 33. A copy of this judgment shall be transmitted forthwith to the Industrial Tribunal Haryana at Ambala. The Tribunal after affording opportunity to parties to produce evidence of their choice and also opportunity cross examine each other shall dispose of the matter expeditiously, and at any rate not later than six months from the date of first appearance of parties. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 15th September, 1989 to receive further direction. 34. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (8) TMI 375 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce before them by applying test of human probabilities. Human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece of evidence. But in that sphere, the decision of the final fact-finding authority is made conclusive by law. The Supreme Court further observed that at any rate what value should be attached to a piece of evidence was for final-fact finding body to decide. 5. In our view, there is no question of law involved in this case. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. All the evidence produced by the assessee has been into consideration. It has not been shown that the Tribunal has ignored any relevant material. The entire evidence has been discussed and the Tribunal has given findings on facts. We see no reason to interfere with the findings of facts made by the Tribunal. Therefore, this question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order at to costs. Bhagabati prasad banerjee, j. I agree.
-
1989 (8) TMI 374 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on 86(1) of the Act. The question of exercise of discretion by the court in permitting the appellant to supply the particulars does not arise at all. 33. Lastly, the decision of this Court in A. Madan Mohan v. Kalavakunta Chandrasekhara 1984 2SCR894 has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. We fail to understand how this case is of any assistance to the appellant, for in this case also this Court once more approved of the decision in Karunanidhi's case AIR. 1983 SC 588. No other point has been urged by either party in this appeal. 34. In view of the, discussion made above, we affirm the judgment of the High Court dismissing the election petition of the appellant on the ground that as the copy of the video cassette was not served on the first respondent along with a copy of the election petition, it was non-compliance with the provision of Section 81(3) of the Act. 35. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (8) TMI 373 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... suit and is belated one is also devoid of force as the suit is at preliminary stage and no prejudice will be caused to the defendants if the amendment is allowed at this stage as the fact remains that all such reliefs arise out of termination of services. (6) Under Order 6 Rule 17 all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In this present case, the amendments sought for are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties, and it will not work injustice to the other party if the amendment is allowed. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case there should be no objection for allowing such an amendment. (7) In view of this, the amendment as prayed for the plaintiff is allowed subject to payment of costs of ₹ 500.00 to the defendant.
-
1989 (8) TMI 372 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tely may not fall within the definition of such a case. Since actually the offence made out against the petitioner was covered by Section 287 I Pc, it must be held that the police could not have investigated the offence without seeking appropriate permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The State has not filed any revision against the order of the learned Magistrate by which he held that actually the offence was made out under Section 287 Indian Penal Code and not under Section 338 IPC. (5) I am, Therefore, of the view that since the offence was non-cognizable wherein the permission of the Magistrate for investigation under Section 155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure was not obtained the continuation of the criminal proceedings before the learned Magistrate would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. I, Therefore, quash the proceedings against the petitioner in relation to Fir No. 40 of 1986 of Police Station Anand Parbat.
-
1989 (8) TMI 371 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... l dismissed.
-
1989 (8) TMI 370 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d be executed with the police help against any person or persons who might be in possession of the business and premises wherein it was conducted. Instead of giving any directions to the executing court in this regard, we order that the Court Receiver of Bombay High Court is appointed as the Receiver of the said business and the premises in which the same was conducted as stated aforesaid . He will take possession of the said business and premises from whosoever may be in possession thereof. He may apply for police help in taking possession if he thinks fit. The Receiver will then put the plaintiff in possession as his agent on usual terms without security on payments of such outgoings as the Receiver may think fit but without asking for any royalty. This order will remain in force for a period of eight weeks from the date when the Receiver takes possession as aforestated but will be subject to any orders which the executing court may pass after hearing the respondent herein.
-
1989 (8) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law. These errors have seriously vitiated the impugned judgment of the High Court which must be set aside. 6. As the very approach of the High Court in deciding the second appeal appears to be wholly unsatisfactory, it is a fit case in which the second appeal should be re-heard by it. 7. This appeal is, for the reasons indicated above, allowed. The decision of the High Court is set aside and the case is remitted to it for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above . The costs shall abide the final result in the litigation. Before the second appeal is taken up for rehearing, proper steps under the law for assessing and realising court fees payable on the plaint and the memoranda of the appeals in the first appellate court and the High Court on the basis of a correct valuation should be taken.
-
1989 (8) TMI 368 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 5). In the additional ground raised by the appellant, the appellant has mentioned that in the present matter provisions of Section 15(1)(C) of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable. We do not find any merit in the appellants' contention and hold that customs duty is leviable at the rates on the date of the filing of the Bill of Entry. Now coming to the valuation aspects, we would like to observe that the goods were invoiced at the time of the original import "i.e. prior to the exhibition of goods", at the full value as to be taken in terms of provision of Section 14(1)(a) Customs Act, 1962. A special discount of 10% cannot be deducted from the assessable value at all. 9. We have rejected appellant's prayer for permission for raising the ground of appeal No. 17 in Para No. 5 above we are not taking the note of arguments on the charge of the C.V. Duty. 10. In view of the above discussion, we confirm the findings of the lower authorities and dismiss the appeal.
-
1989 (8) TMI 367 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... judgment of the High Court is set aside without any pronouncement on the merits of this controversy and the second appeal remitted to the High Court for consideration of contentions pertaining to the effect of Section 21-A of Banking Regulations Act on the applicability of Usurious Loans Act, 1918, and if the said Act is held attracted whether the appall and is able to rebut the presumption of excessiveness of interest and also whether there were other legal impediments of the nature adverted to by the High Court, a reference to which is made in para 11, to charge compound interest agricultural advances. On this point the Respondent shall be entitled to raise additional grounds before the High Court and the High Court shall examine the same if additional grounds are so raised. 26. It appears appropriate that the second-appeal be placed before a Division-Bench of the High Court for hearing. It is so directed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly without an order as to costs.
-
1989 (8) TMI 366 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hen the Excise Department repatriated him to his parent department. After obtaining that decree from a court of competent jurisdiction, he could not turn round and say that he still retained lien against his post in the parent department. The lien in his parent department must be held to have been cancelled consequent On the decree of the Civil Court. Therefore, the Excise Commissioner seems to be the only competent authority to pass the order compulsorily retiring him from service. 10. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. 11. Before parting with the case, we may however add a word more. It was stated that in view of pendency of the proceedings in this Court and in the High Court, the pension due to the appellant has not been finalised. We, therefore, direct the respondent to determine the pensionary benefits of the appellant and pay the same to his legal heirs within three months, if not already paid.
-
1989 (8) TMI 365 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... admitted execution of sale deed on 10-8-1964 for a sum of ₹ 14,000/- (para-4). In such a situation, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could be granted a decree for refund of this amount, if there be no other legal impediment. The learned Counsel for the appellant has conceded that there was no such legal impediment. It would, therefore, be in the interest of justice to grant a decree for refund of consideration as the same would bring this litigation to an end. Under the circumstances, though this Court would allow the appeal and dismiss the suit of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the appellants with costs, it would grant a decree in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs against the respondent No. 3 for a sum of ₹ 14,000/-together with interest at the rate of 6 per annum from the date of payment i.e. 10-8-1964 till repayment, together with proportionate costs. Costs of the appellants in this court will be borne by respondent No. 3. Let a decree be drawn, accordingly.
-
1989 (8) TMI 364 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of an appropriate election, it is incumbent upon it, until any such amendment is made, to work the present Scheme in such a way as to give the maximum scope for the concerned employees to exercise their choice in the selection of their representatives. That means, it would be perfectly in order for the Central Government to continue the practice followed by it prior to the circular in question or to hold election of the representatives of the concerned employees, and, if necessary, to amend the Scheme suitably for that purpose. 13. In the circumstances, we declare that the circular dated 23-8-1982 (Annexure A) is ultra vires the Act and the Scheme and it is, therefore, null and void and of no effect. The Transfer Case is accordingly disposed of Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 8572 of 1988 and Transfer Petitions Nos. 376-401 of 1985 are allowed. Parties shall bear their respective costs. 1. See the Preamble to the Constitution enshrining the national policy and objectives.
-
1989 (8) TMI 363 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n such a case cannot take the defence of a breach of the condition in the certificate of insurance. 7. But in the present case, the onus of the insurer has been discharged from the evidence of the insured himself. The insured took a positive defence stating that he was not the owner of the vehicle since he had already sold the same to a third party. This has not been proved. Secondly, he took a defence stating that the vehicle at the relevant time was driven by a licensed driver, Gaya Prasad, (PW-2). This was proved to be false. There is no other material even to indicate that the vehicle was entrusted to the licensed driver on the date of the fatal accident. With these distinguishing features in the present case, we do not think that the ratio of the decision in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd., case AIR 1987 SC 1184 could be called to aid the appellants. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1989 (8) TMI 362 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioners were unable to point out any invalidity in that provision. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court to decide matters falling in Clause (i) of Section 46. has been taken away by the Amending Act which has received the assent of the President. It has not been urged that the legislature is not competent to enact such a provision. We see no cogent reason for holding Section 46 of the Act as amended, to be invalid. For all these reasons, these petitions are partly allowed and it is declared that Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 11-A, Section 11-B, the proviso to Section 41, the proviso to Section 42 and Section 42-A of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act I960, as amended by the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act 1989, are void and unconstitutional. These provisions are accordingly struct down. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these petitions. Security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners.
-
1989 (8) TMI 361 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. It is therefore clear that the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act clearly excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court by implication in respect of remedies which are available under this Act and for which a complete procedure and machinery has been provided in this Act. 6. Under these circumstances therefore so far as the present suit filed by the appellant plaintiff is concerned, there appears to be no doubt that civil court had no jurisdiction and the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion. The appeal is therefore dismissed but as it is an appeal filed by an employee who lost his employment long ago, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1989 (8) TMI 360 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the agreement. It is not suggested on behalf of the respondent that there is any relationship between the parties or that they were friends which induced him to allow the appellant to occupy the building. Realisation of rent which has been described in the document (Ext. 20) as "compensation reserved for use and occupation" was the sole consideration of the transaction. In this background the description of the parties as lessor and lessee or the rent as compensation does not carry much weight. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that Ext. 20 was in reality a document of lease and the appellant has been enjoying the exclusive possession thereof in the capacity of month to month tenant. As a result the suit was, in view of the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, not maintainable. The appeal is accordingly allowed but without costs, the decree passed by the courts below is set aside and the suit is dismissed.
-
1989 (8) TMI 359 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ruggle and was one of the architects of Modern India has also been dragged in unnecessarily by the petitioner just to make out a case for the annulment of this Bill. One thing astonished me very much as to what led the petitioner to make Mr. Rajiv Gandhi by name a party-respondent. I understand that he is made a party as Prime Minister but now he can improve the writ application if he is made a party by name in person. Perhaps the sole object of the writ petitioner was to cast aspersion on the personality of Mr. Rajiv Gimdhi and this is the reason why he has taken pain to make so many allegations in those paragraphs which have no bearing on the reliefs sought and appear to be political gimmick. 23. In the circumstances aforesaid I hold that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable, and therefore, stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 24. If the urgent application is made for the certified copy of the judgment the same should be expeditiously given.
........
|
