|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 305 Records
-
1995 (12) TMI 425 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... SWAMI, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 424 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of sale (Ex.55) dated June 29, 1969 was executed. The fact that it was not pleaded nor did it find mention in Ex. 55, would amount to fabrication of record to buttress the cause. The Court would look into the conduct of the parties, the respective interests had under the contract and attending facts and circumstances. It would thus be clear that the statutory rights of part performance under Section 53-A cannot be used for the declaration sought in the suit. In view of these findings it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the agreement prevails over the attachment nor the ratio in Vannarakhal Kallalathil Streedharan's case helps the petitioner. The trial Court, therefore, committed manifest error in decreeing the suit. The High Court had rightly adverted to all the relevant facts and the petitioner was denied the right to avail of the statutory rights under Section 53-A. The case, therefore, does not warrant interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 423 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., AIR1982Delhi357 , Hariprashad and Co. Ltd. v. Sudarshan Steel Rolling Mills 1980 50 Comp Cas 709; V. K. Constructions Works Ltd. v. Bank of Rajasthan 1992 DRJ 23 and Punj Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Corporation 1991 DRJ 20. But all these cases are not applicable on all fours to the facts before me. Similarly, in view of the above-quoted decisions of the apex court, it is not necessary to discuss them in detail. 19. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the ad interim injunction to restrain defendant No. 1 from encashing the bank guarantee and restrain defendant No. 2 for making payment of the bank guarantee to defendant No. 1. 20. Thus, I hold that the present I. A. No. 7356 of 1995 deserves to be rejected. I, Therefore, order that I. A. No. 7356 of 1995 stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000 and the interim injunction passed on July 17, 1995, on this application stands vacated.
-
1995 (12) TMI 422 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sential not only for maintaining decency and propriety in the election campaign but also for the preservation of the proper and time honoured values forming part of our cultural heritage and for a free and fair poll in a secular democracy. The offending speeches in the present case discarded the cherished values of our rich cultural heritage and tended to erode the secular polity. We say this, with the fervent hope that our observation has some chastening effect in the future election campaigns. 64. For the aforesaid reasons, both the appeals must fail. We may Observe that considerable irrelevant material was brought on record during the trial at the instance of both the parties which, apart from needlessly enlarging the scope of the trial, has led to needless extra expense and wastage of time even in the hearing of these appeals. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to direct the parties to bear their own costs in this Court. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 421 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es compensation for the acquired land at the prices prevailing as on the date of publishing Section 4(1) notification, to be quantified at later stages of proceedings. For dispensation or dislocation interest is payable under Sections 23(1-A) as additional amount and interest under Sections 31 and 28 of the Act to recompensate the loss of right to enjoyment of the property from the date of notification under Section 23(1-A) and from the date of possession till compensation is deposited. It would thus be clear that the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable. 19. Thus considered, we hold that we do not find any illegality in the notification warranting interference. The appeal is according dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. C.A. 12123 /95 @ SLP (C) No. 6831/93 20. In view of the decision rendered above in Civil Appeal No. 12122/95 @ SLP (C) No. 4896/93; this appeal is also dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 420 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and circumstances of the present case in which there is a serious allegation that Bodhisattwa Gautam had married Subhra Chakraborty before the God he worshiped by putting Vermilion on her forehead and accepting her as his wife and also having impregnated her twice resulting in abortion on both the occasions, we, on being prima-facie satisfied, dispose of this matter by providing that Bodhisattwa Gautam shall pay to Subhra Chakraborty a sum of Rs. 1,000 every month as interim compensation during the pendency of Criminal Case No. 1/95 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kohima, Nagaland. He shall also be liable to pay arrears of compensation at the same rate from the date on which the complaint was filed till this date. We may further observe that whatever has been said in this Judgment shall not, in any way, affect or prejudice the Magistrate from deciding the complaint on merits on the basis of the evidence as may be tendered before it and in accordance with law.
-
1995 (12) TMI 419 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... does not state what is the period of the delay. The civil appeal is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
1995 (12) TMI 418 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
-
1995 (12) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s under 86 Registering officer not liable for thing bona fide done or refused in his official capacity. - No registering officer shall be liable to any suit, claim or demand by reason of any thing in good faith done or refused in his official capacity. 45. This Section provides complete protection to the Registering Officer for things done "bona fide" by him under the Act. It is obvious that action which is not bona fide or which is malicious will not be protected. 46. These provisions were not noticed by this Court in Lucknow Development Authority's case obviously because this aspect of the matter was not involved therein. In the instant case, neither the appellant pleaded nor has the District or the State forum recorded any finding that the refusal of the Registering Officer or the inaction of the Collector of Stamps was malicious, motivated or mala-fide. We need not, therefore, further delve into the matter. 47. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 416 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... made progress or the chargesheet is submitted. It should be realised that an order of anticipatory bail could even be obtained in cases of serious nature as for example murder and, therefore, it is essential that the duration of that order should be limited and ordinarily the Court granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for the original Court which is expected to deal with the offence. It is that Court which has then to consider whether, having regard to the material placed before it, the accused person is entitled to bail. In the instant case, therefore, the High Court had followed the correct procedure and we see no reason to interfere. However, Mr. Bhasme, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that since this Court had granted an interim order by which the duration of the order was extended he has not applied for bail before the regular Court. He may do so, if he so desires, within two weeks from today. The petition will stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 415 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... wami, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 414 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 5000/- for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside. C. C. 241/89 before Judicial First C1ass Magistrate, Kannur is sent back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The Magistrate shall give sufficient opportunity to complainant to summon the Bank Manager for proving that the cheque was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. After examining the Manager the Magistrate shall decide the case afresh on the basis of such evidence and the other evidence already available on record. It is made clear that the additional evidence to be adduced is only the evidence of the Bank Manager and documents in connection with the return of the cheque by the bank. Neither parly will be entitled 1o adduce any other evidence. The parties shall appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate Kannuron 8-1-1996.
-
1995 (12) TMI 413 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... swami, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 412 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and social and economic justice assured in the Preamble to the Constitution of India and Articles 38 and 46 to minimise inequalities in income and status. The State distributes under Article 39(b), its material resources to subserve the said purpose. Having obtained the grant or permission, appellants cannot convert the land into non-agricultural use as well as for building houses, The sale of Government land for nominal amount was for the avowed constitutional purposes. After the conversion, sale of the lands for building purpose would be a windfall. Obviously, the public purpose of the grant and the constitutional goals would be defeated by this method of circumvention. The Government therefore, is justified in cancelling the grant. 4. The next question is to what extent the grant is to be cancelled. Under the above circumstances, the Government is entitled to revoke the grant in respect of the entire extent of land. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 411 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee cannot be allowed to challenge such concluded findings collaterally in an appeal filed against the fresh order passed by the ITO with a view to giving effect to the same. 11. In our opinion, though appeal is maintainable from the order passed by the ITO to give effect to a revisional order or an appellate order, only such issues can be agitated in such appeal which have not attained finality by virtue of earlier orders of the revisional or appellate authorities. It is not open in such an appeal to agitate any point which has already been decided by the revisional or the appellate authorities in their order. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal in the instant case. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. On the very same reasoning, question No. 2 is also answered in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 410 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Co. had stated that all items/goods were assembled at BSP and finally assembled into Hydraulic drilling machine and mudguns or part thereof (identifiable machinery) and thereafter these were installed/erected at Blast furnace at Bhilai) refer page 97 of the paper book. Again at page 100 of the paper book, Shri N. Balachandran, Representative of the appellant company had admitted that the various items/goods were assembled at Bhilai and finally assembled into Hydraulic drilling machines and mudguns or parts thereof (identifiable machinery) and thereafter they were installed/erected at Blast furnace at Bhilai. Thus, it is seen that the facts of manufacturing had not been declared to the proper central excise officers. In the circumstances, I agree with the ld. Member (T) on the point of limitation also. In the light of the majority opinion, the impugned order is upheld both on the issue of excisability of the goods in question, as well as on limitation and the appeal rejected.
-
1995 (12) TMI 409 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case at hand was wrongly decided. 6. The second question is whether as a fact, reference has been ordered by the Government. It is seen that on the earlier occasion admittedly reference was rejected on the ground that the appellant had settled the matter with the employer. In the second application, the Minister made a note directing reference, but in the order communicated later to the appellant by the Labour Department, it was indicated that in view of the decision already taken, the Government did not consider it necessary to reconsider the decision already taken. In other words, they were of the opinion that there existed no industrial dispute. They declined to make reference under Section 10(1). Therefore, there is no reference, in fact, made to the appropriate Tribunal/Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. 7. In these circumstances, we cannot give relief to the appellant, since there is no reference made by the Government. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 408 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... visions under Article 311 of the Constitution. Recently, in SLP C No.11659/92 the matter had come up before this Court on November 13, 1995, where the validity of pari materia provision was questioned. This Court upheld the validity stating that the above clause will operate prospectively. A contention has been raised by Mr. Krishnamani that in Tulsi Ram Patel's case supra this Court had upheld the validity of the Rule subject to the principle of natural justice. It is needless to mention that the principle of natural justice requires to be modulated consistent with the scheme of the Rules. It is settled law that the principle of natural justice cannot supplant but can supplement the law. In that view of the matter, the Rule having been made to meet specified contingency the principle of natural justice by implication, stands excluded. We do not think that the Rule is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 as stated earlier. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 407 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lief to these owners/licencees. After their writ petitions were dismissed, they were to bear the liability from the date of the enforcement of the notification as held by this Court. It is, therefore, necessary that from the date on which the respective owners of the theaters or the licencees, who had filed the writ petition in the High Court, are made liable to deposit their share of contribution towards provident fund account under the scheme. We are issuing the order under Article 142 of the Constitution. The order of the High Court to that extent is set aside. The respondent and all the theaters owners are directed to deposit their share of contribution to the provident fund account from the respective dates on which they filed the writ petitions in the High Court. The appellants should intimate all of them the date on which they had filed the writ petitions and call upon them to pay their share of contribution. The appeal is accordingly allowed to above extent. No costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 406 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he impugned judgment. This discussion is sufficient to set aside the only remaining finding against the appellant. From the above discussion, it follows that the findings on all points against the appellant, of the corrupt practices held to be proved against the appellant, have to be set aside, and so also the impugned judgment dated 5th/6th August, 1991, resulting in dismissal of the election petition. The notices issued by the High Court under Section 99 of the R.P. Act to Chhagan Bhujbal, Bal Thackeray, Pramod Mahajan, Manohar Joshi and Pramod Navalkar after conclusion of the trial must also be quashed for the above reasons. The result of this decision is that the inquiry against Pramod Navalkar and Manohar Joshi pending in the High Court in this matter also terminates. The appeals are allowed. The appellant Ramakant Mayekar would get costs throughout from the respondent Smt. Celine D'Silva (election petitioner). The other parties will bear their own costs throughout.
........
|
