|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 291 Records
-
1990 (9) TMI 367 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the scene by the investigating officer. 6. The plea of the appellant, namely, the State in the present appeal that the reasons assigned by the High Court for recording the order of acquittal are erroneous, cannot be accepted for a moment since in our considered opinion the High Court has given valid and weighty reasons for its in assailable logical conclusion. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, the entire version of the prosecution and the evidence of the eye witnesses as well the evidence of Sheo Narain are directly in conflict with the opinion of the Medical Officer whose opinion is based on the nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased and the presence of semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, in our view, cannot be termed as either perverse or fallacious and hence we do not find any compelling reason to take a contrary view to that of the High Court. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 366 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... esponsible for this crime. We perused the injury report and we could not find any reason to adopt its authenticity. 12. Before parting with this case we consider it necessary to record that the Judge was uncharitable in discarding the testimony of Dr. Patrisia and doubting her truthfulness principally because she was a woman forgetting that she was a doctor of 14 years standing and there was no reason for her to make the endorsement on the injury report other than stated that it was on request of Dr. Themani. We do not wish to comment further but we express our deep dissatisfaction on the manner in which the Judge criticised the two doctors. For the reasons stated above we are of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in allowing the appeal and recording the conviction under Section 378 read with Section 386(1)(a) of the Indian Penal Code. 13. In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant is already in jail. He shall serve out his sentence.
-
1990 (9) TMI 365 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e issued by defendant No. 6 there was no cause at any rate sufficient cause for the plaintiff to doubt the title of defendant No. 1 nor can it be said that the plaintiff acted negligently disregarding 'red flag' raising suspicion. Viewed from this background it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause to doubt the title nor there is scope to infer gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff. There is no material which amounts to rebuttal of the presumption in his favour as provided under Section 118(g). On the other hand. the plaintiff has discharged the necessary burden to the extent on him and has proved that he is a holder in due course for valid consideration. Therefore, we hold that he could validly maintain an action against all the defendants including defendant No. 6. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the courts below and dismiss the appeal. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 364 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ring money of its customers to some other persons account on oral authority, people will loose faith in the credibility of Bank. 5. Since the basic facts regarding the unauthorised transfer of the disputed amount from the appellant's account as well as the Bank's liability was admitted, there was no justification for the High Court to direct the appellant to file suit on ground of disputed questions of fact. The respondent Bank is an instrumentality of the State and it must function honestly to serve its customers. 6. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and direct the Indian Bank to recredit the disputed amount of ₹ 12.95 lacs to the appellant's account within three weeks from today along with interest if any due on the aforesaid amount. As regards the dispute between the appellant and respondents Nos. 6 and 7 is concerned, we express no opinion on the same. The appellant is entitled to its costs from the respondent No. 1
-
1990 (9) TMI 363 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that in Uttar Pradesh where the offence would be enquired into and and, tried there is likelihood of the petitioner being humiliated in the eyes of people. In such circumstances and situation it would be appropriate and expedient in the interest of justice to grant him anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial. 34. We, Therefore, allow this petition and enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in criminal case being Crime No. 182 A/89 pending in the Court of C.J.M., District Sultanpur, U.P., and further direct that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹ 10,000/- to the person/officer effecting his arrest for the petitioner's appearance before the concerned Court. After the personal bond is furnished by the petitioner, as directed, the same shall be sent thereafter to the Court of C.J.M., Sultanpur District, U.P. 35. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 362 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. etc. 1989 178 ITR 548(SC) , the submission could be not pressed as in the present case the matter had concluded long before April 13, 1982. 8. In view of the above we do not see any merit in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. 9. Before we part, we may point out that the petitioner-society comprises of members belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Their land was expropriated for a public purpose. In law we are unable to entertain their claim as that would open up flood gates for similar applications in innumerable cases which may have become final. Nonetheless, as pointed out by the Full Bench of the High Court, the Government is not precluded from paying the balance amount ex-gratia to the society whose members belong to the economically deprived segment of the society. A copy of this judgment may be sent to the concerned department by a letter pointing out these observations for appropriate action.
-
1990 (9) TMI 361 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ed as no satisfactory ground of delay is explained. Consequently, the special leave petition is dismissed as barred by time.
-
1990 (9) TMI 360 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e company to be stayed pending such appeal, that cannot lead to the conclusion that the phrase "on enquiry under Section 16" in Section 22(1) must include a reference under Section 15 of the Act. We do not wish to speculate as to the reason why Parliament included the pendency of appeals as a situation warranting stay of all proceedings. Suffice it to say that, in view of the clear wording of Section 22(1), there is no need to embark upon an enquiry into the intention of Parliament. 21. In that view of the matter, we dismiss this application and vacate all interim orders. 22. In the circumstances of this case, however, there will be no order as to costs. 23. In view of the decision given by us in this application, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal is, therefore, treated as on the day's list and dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is discharged from its undertaking. Ray, J. 24. I agree.
-
1990 (9) TMI 359 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut the fact remains that the assessment of the firm was made as registered firm, as such the income from the partnership firm is includible in the hands of the assessee, a partner of the firm. That apart, section 182(1) of the Act provided that after the income of the firm has been determined by the ITO, the share of each partner in the income of the firm shall be included in its total income and assessed to tax, accordingly, in the year in which such allocation has been made. In our view, therefore, apart from the fact that the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting, in terms of section 182(1) such income is includible, being the assessee's share in the profit of the firm in the total income of the assessee. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Banerjee, J. - I agree.
-
1990 (9) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ith law after giving an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. 6. We may incidentally point out that when this matter came up for hearing before this Court on 23rd July, 1985, this Court observed that it considered the case one which was pre-eminently fit for a settlement. It appears that thereafter no further progress seems to have been made in the direction of arriving at an amicable settlement. We are also told by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the meantime the Government of India has acquired another land in Raja Santosh Road, Alipur for the late. If that be so, we think that an amicable settlement would not be difficult to reach. 7. In the result, these petitions are allowed and the rule is made absolute to the effect that the Central Government will consider afresh the request of the petitioners for grant of consent under Section 86(2)(c) of the Code at an early date, preferably within three months from today. There will be no Order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Judge proceeded on the footing that the Directors were owners of the company. We called upon the learned Counsel for the appellant to substantiate the proposition that Directors in the absence of anything more would have to be treated owners of the; company and he has candidly accepted the position that in the absence of facts and proof of actual position, Directors cannot be treated ipso factor as owners. Thus no support is available from the precedents. We are of the view that the High Court was right in its conclusion that the liability was of the company and in the event of their being an occupier, he was liable to meet the demand. o p /o p 4. Counsel has no information as to whether any action has been taken against the company for recovery of the amount as suggested in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs on account of the fact that there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. o p /o p
-
1990 (9) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed. It settles in purchaser. Giving up such right. expressly or impliedly cannot therefore be said to involve any interest of community or public welfare so as to be in mischief of public policy. Even otherwise on facts found that the respondent knew of the sale deed. assisted the appellant in raising the construction and after the construction was completed in the month of June he gave the notice in month of July for exercise of the right and filed the suit in January would itself demonstrate that the conduct of the respondent was inequitable and the courts in this country which are primarily the courts of equity, justice and good conscience cannot permit the respondent to defeat the right of appellant and invoke a right which has been called a weak and inequitable right. In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court is restored. The appellant shall be entitled to his costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 355 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the company's workmen will find jobs in the new corporation. 33. A great many of the company's workmen are project-affected persons and had been given employment in the company on that score. If the fact that their services with the company have now come to an end gives them any cause for action against the State, they shall be free to take such action. 34. The company has satisfied us that it has passed a special resolution that it be wound up by the Court, that it unable to pay its debts and that its substratum had gone so that it is just and equitable that it should be wound up. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The petition is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). 35. On Mr. Ganguli's application, the operation of the order is stayed for a period of six weeks. It is made clear that the Official Liquidator shall remain the Provisional Liquidator of the company during this period of six weeks.
-
1990 (9) TMI 354 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on to the loss caused to the owner of the land. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that Section 25(3) contemplates payment of interests on solatium to recompensate the owner of the land for loss of user of the land from the date of taking possession till date of payment into court. The word compensation has been advisedly used by the legislature. Accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to interest on solatium. 13. We allow the appeals to the extent indicated above. The market value is fixed at ₹ 18 per cent and confirm the market value at ₹ 30 per cent for wet lands awarded by the Collector. Solatium at ₹ 15 per cent and interest at 6 per cent on the excess market value determined under the judgment including solatium from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. In other respects the judgment of the High Court is confirmed and in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. Appeals allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 353 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... am by the commission of offences whilst in service. This is a matter for the trial Court to decide on the assessment of the evidence to be adduced and to give a finding thereon. As respects the other question of lifting of the freezing of accounts by the issuance of a prohibitory order by the Investigating Agency under section 102, Cr.P.C., it cannot be stated that the Investigating Agency is not empowered to issue such order, on the face of the decisions of Padmini Jesudurai, J. in Bharat Overseas Bank v. Minu Publications, wherein the learned Judge took the view that money in Bank account is property within section 102, Cr.P.C., which could be seized by prohibiting the holder of the account from operating it. On reference to a Division Bench of this Court, subsequently on the same point, the view of Padmini Jesudurai, J. was upheld. In these circumstances, the directions sought for by the petitioners cannot be issued and the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 352 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... entifiable and there can be no question of being seized by the police officer. Therefore, no order can be passed by a police officer under section 550 (old) 102 (new) prohibiting a bank with which the accused has an account not to pay any amount out of the account of the accused to the accused until further order. 7. I respectfully agree with the decision of the Allahabad High Court cited above. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the Special Judge and the orders of the police officer (CBI) are hereby quashed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the case of lockers, if there is any article which may be found under the circumstances which creates suspicion of the commission of any offence, the police officer (CBI) may take possession of that property in accordance with law within two weeks from today and the concerned banks shall not allow the petitioner to take out any articles from the lockers within the said period of two weeks.
-
1990 (9) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er has lastly urged that the order dated February 21, 1990 rejecting the representation of the petitioner is in English language and it is not in the language which the petitioner understands. This ground has not been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The photostat copy of the order dated Feb. 21, 1990 which was sent for service on the petitioner has, however, been placed before us. The said copy bears the following endorsement by the Jailor, Central Prison, Madras "Readover and explained in the language known to him and served by me." The said endorsement shows that at the time of service of the order dated February 21, 1990 the Jailor had explained the said order to the petitioner in the language known to him. 12. Since none of the grounds that have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... present case as well especially when the matter is pending in this Court and this appointment is with reference to a case of promotion and appointment, It is true that at the time when the appellant was promoted the Rule had not been amended. However it may also be mentioned that the appellant is the senior most among the Senior Geologists and even if he is to be considered again trader the amended rules he shall have to be appointed and nothing is stated in these proceedings which would disqualify him even now. In the circumstances we are of the view that the appeal against the decision in Writ Petition No. 2161 of 1986 will have to be allowed though Civil Appeal No. 2146 of 1984 will have to be dismissed. Accordingly we allow Civil Appeal No. 2166 of 1987 set aside the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2161 of 1986. Civil Appeal No. 2146 of 1984 is however dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. CA No. 2166/87 allowed and CA No. 2146/85 dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 349 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the inherent limitations on the scope of the inquiry are themselves a part of those principles. In a matter even as between the parties, there must be shown a public law element to the contractual decision before judicial review is invoked. In the present case the material placed before the Court fails far short of what the law requires to justify interference. 7. There is no merit in the contention that the Project Scheme was tailored to suit Respondent No. 6 alone or that the project as put to tender did not admit of tenders on fixed comparable parameters. No other tenderer expressed any grievance. The tenders were such that the tenderer could identify the terms which form the basis of comparative evaluation. The charge of arbitrariness cannot be upheld. 8. To condemn the Municipal authority's decision, other- wise valid, on the ground alone that the developer is likely to resort to transactions of unaccounted money would, as a judicial remedy, be plainly unthinkable.
-
1990 (9) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al, Chief Accounts Officer, Randhir Singh, Manager (Personnel) and R. S. Malik, Ex-Managing Director. The further proceedings of the inquiry shall be commenced on 20th October and continued from day to day. o p /o p There shall be no necessity for the inquiry authority to issue fresh notices to the appellant in respect of the further proceedings on that day. The appellant shall appear along with his lawyer before the inquiry authority on that date and the subsequent dates to which the proceedings may stand adjourned. Appellant's lawyer shall be entitled to cross-examine these witnesses and to address arguments. The inquiry officer shall be at liberty to refuse any prayer for adjournment which he thinks unreasonable and which in his opinion is intended to protract the proceedings. o p /o p The inquiry shall'be completed within one month from 20th of October, 1990. o p /o p The appeal is disposed of accordingly. o p /o p No costs. o p /o p Ordered accordingly. o p /o p
........
|
