|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 400 Records
-
1996 (10) TMI 529 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view, the appellant being admittedly a dealer under Section 2(1) of the Act was required to take a licence. The question of liability to pay levy of market fee is to be decided on the basic of actual business activities of the appellant with reference to agricultural produce involved in such business activities. If in respect of some agricultural produce the appellant has no liability of market levy in view of single point levy, it is for the appellant to establish such claim with reference to records. It is unfortunate that the appellant has not obtained licence despite reminder. The appellant has successfully prevented the action on the complaint made against him for not taking the licence under Section 4(3) of the Markets Act by moving the writ petition before the High Court and raising untenable contentions in such writ petition. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. This appeal is dismissed with cost assessed at rupees ten thousand only.
-
1996 (10) TMI 528 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of making any selection for making appointment on the said post. The case of the respondent in this regard is negatived by the fact that after his appointment as Science Supervisor by order dated November 29, 1973 the respondent continued to be borne in the cadre of science Master and was confirmed on the said post with effect from July 31, 1975 by order dated October 6, 1976 and his name is shown in the Gradation List for Masters as on January 1, 1986 therefore, be held that while working as science supervisor the respondent is substantively holding the post of Science Master and he cannot claim salary higher than that of Science Master which is being paid to him. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment of the Tribunal dated August 17, 1994 is set aside and O.A. No. 490/CH/1987 filed by the respondent is dismissed. But in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 527 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ylending transaction at all, could not be decided on the basis of the available material and in the absence of any proper evidence. The transaction as reflected from the agreement does not prima facie, seems to be a money lending transaction. The execution of the promissory-note by itself would not make this to be a moneylending transaction because the promissory-note could be viewed as a collateral security for insuring the regular payment of installments also. In short, in the absence of proper evidence, it could not be straightaway held to be a moneylending transaction. This defence will, therefore, have to be rejected. 25. However, as regards the question of limitation, I have already held that since the suit for recovery of this amount would itself have been barred by limitation, the winding-up petition would have to be dismissed. 26. In that view of the matter, the instant winding petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to the costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onths and thereafter to complete the exercise of allotment within two months. Till then, the present allottees would be allowed to continue. 18. Secondly, Smt. Shiela Kaul, who was prima facie personally responsible for the illegal allotments, has to be asked to show cause as to why damage should not be awarded against her for her alleged misuse of power. So, a notice be issued to her to show cause why she should not asked to pay such sum as damages, for each of the illegal allotments made by her, as this Court would deem just and proper. The cause would be shown within three weeks of the receipt of this order. 19. The issue relating to the matter of illegal allotments of the aforesaid 52 shops/stalls, stands disposed of accordingly. It may be put up for further orders on 1st November, 1996. 20. Let a copy of this order be served on Smt. Shiela Kaul urgently to enable her to act as ordered in the judgment. Steps in this regard shall be taken by the Registry within three days.
-
1996 (10) TMI 525 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e was so informed, he was required to sit in a Division Bench on that day and was bound to carry out this direction. If there was any difficulty, it was his duty to go to she Chief Justice and explain the situation so that the Chief Justice could then give appropriate directions in that connection. But he could not have. on his own, disregarded the directions given by the Chief Justice and http //JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3 chosen to sit singly. We deprecate this behaviour which totally undermines Judicial discipline and proper functioning of the High Court. Looking to these regrettable circumstances in which the impugned order came to be passed ex parte by the learned Single Judge, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for decision on merit in accordance with law. The matter may be placed before another learned Single Judge by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 524 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and other encroachers and they may be ejected from the present encroachments. As regards other persons who have become encroachers by way of purchase either from the original encroachers or encroached pending writ petition/appeal in this Court, they are not entitled to the benefits given to the 10 encroachers. As regards those who are eligible according to the guidelines in the schemes and also fulfil the income criterion, it may be open to the Corporation to extend the same benefits in either of the three schemes, if they so desire. It is, however, made clear that we are not giving any specific direction in this behalf lest it would amount to encouraging the people to abuse the judicial process to avail of such remedy by encroaching public property. 33. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is modified as indicated above. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 523 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liability jointly and severally against all the defendants and the assets and estates. The relief originally sought for also was to declare the liability of the damages to be ascertained and recoverable from them. Thus, it could be seen that as per the original cause of action, the relief now sought for was available in the suit itself. Instead of settlement of account, the defendants is now seeking for damages against the defendants and the damages instead of being ascertained were quantified in paragraph 8A of the plaint. The amendment does not constitute addition of any new cause of action. The respondent is not introducing any new cause of action nor it would change the cause of action as originally pleaded. Thus, there is neither change of cause of action nor introduction of any new cause of action after the bar of limitation. The High Court was, therefore, right in allowing the petition for amendment of the plaint. 4. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 522 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, says that though the second proposition of the High Court may not be correct, yet so far as this case is concerned it does not make any difference for the reason that in this case, as a fact an opportunity was given to the Appellant and that there has been adequate compliance with the principles of natural justice. But since the High Court has not considered the matter from the above angle that is on merits the proper course in our opinion is to remit the matter to the High Court to consider whether an opportunity was given to the Appellant to put forward his case and whether in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, an enquiry was called for and if called for, was it held according to law and the principles of natural justice, and to dispose of the matter according to law. The appeal is allowed with the above directions. No costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 521 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 08, there was no bar in the police investigating the case. In my opinion, the argument has no basis. When the case is actually registered against an accused in respect of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences and ultimately it is found that the cognizable offence is not made out, it may mean giving long hand to the police in first registering cases for cognizable offences which ultimately may not fall within the definition of such a case. I am, Therefore, of the view that the police having not taken permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 323 cannot be continued. (10) For the foregoing reasons while I discharge the petitioners of the offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code, I quash the proceedings pending against them in relation to Fir No. 335/92 Ps Krishna Nagar, in so far as it relate to the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. (11) Petition stands disposed of.
-
1996 (10) TMI 520 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... examine the Commissioner and it is possible for the parties to bring in evidence to disprove Commissioner's report. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that there is no justification in interfering with the order under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the instant case trial Court has gone into the objections raised by parties. Trial Court considered the Commissioner's report and plan, and came to the conclusion that there was no justification in remitting the Commissioner's report and plan. I am of the view that no manifest injustice has been meted out to the Petitioner or that Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Even in cases where there is error or law apparent on the face of the record, this Court need not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the said circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the Petitioner. Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
1996 (10) TMI 519 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bail on merits. The decision in Salauddin Case (Supra) has to be so understood. 4. In the above view we think it appropriate to direct that till the High Court decides the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code the further proceedings in the trial court shall stand stayed. The High Court should dispose of the application as early as possible on or soon after the returnable date i.e. 1-11-1996. As far as the order of 9-10-1996 is concerned, since it proceeds on a misreading of Salauddin Case (Supra) we modify the order by directing that the anticipatory bail will enure till the regular court decides the question of grant of bail and for a week thereafter so that if the regular court refuses bail/the accused persons can, if so advised, move the higher court. 5. With these observations, we dispose of both the special leave petitions. A copy of this order is sent to the Registrar, High Court of Delhi, for information. 6. Heard on 13-10-1996 from 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
-
1996 (10) TMI 518 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of the considered view that the High Court was totally wrong in altering the conviction of A-1 to A-4 from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC. It also needs to be mentioned that there was no challenge to the fact that Bakhtawar Singh died an homicidal death. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the High Court has committed a serious error of law while altering the conviction of respondents A-1 to A-4 from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated January 20, 1988 to the extent of altering the conviction of the respondents from 302/34 to 325/34 IPC is quashed and set aside and that of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 19th September, 1986 is restored. A-1, A-3 and A-4 who are on bail, shall surrender to their bail bonds forthwith to serve out the remainder of their sentences.
-
1996 (10) TMI 517 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... intiffs, it is not possible to visualize on what basis the aforesaid direction had been made. But at any rate such an entry in the Revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs. To our query as to whether there is any other document on the basis of which the plaintiffs can claim title over the disputed land, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents could not point out any other document apart from the alleged correction made in the register pursuant to the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. In our considered opinion, the courts below committed serious error of law in declaring plaintiffs' title on the basis of the aforesaid order of correction and the consequential entry in the Revenue papers. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed in all the three forums are set aside. The plaintiffs' suit stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 516 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Sen, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 515 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA
... ...
... ... ..... the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 70. Thus, in view of the observations made above and for no reasons having been provided in the judgment 1994(1) PLR 140, on the basis of which, it can be held that renewal of a driving licence can be equated with a driving licence or renewal of a fake driving licence would result in its validation, with due respect to the Hon'ble Judges, I am unable to subscribe to the view of law taken in the above referred judgment, which with all humility is expressly over ruled. 71. Nothing substantial has been argued with respect to the cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation. Otherwise too the award of ₹ 2,59,200/- appears to be a just compensation. Thus, we find no ground to increase the compensation. 72. Questions posed, argued or referred are answered, in the above terms. 73. However, for the reasons recorded above the appeal as well as cross-objections fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 514 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... dverse consequences may follow including penalising the guilty. Establishing mens reais the purpose behind any legal framework of this kind, it is essential to invoke such provisions where the funds of public and creditors are vested in the hands of a few individuals for the benefit of the former. We should not stand in the way of invoking the applicable provisions of law having already found that irreparable loss has been caused to various sections of Society apparently by bad management. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the affairs of the Company have to be investigated in respect of the years 199091, 1991 92 & 199293 including the role if any of financial institutions in this regard. The Central Government shall also give the necessary approval under section 240(1A) expeditiously. Since substantial time is already lost on technicalities we urge the department of company affairs to carry out the investigations expeditiously with a time frame. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 513 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ourt was right in the conclusion that the suit is maintainable. 5. The next plea raised was that the renewal of promissory note was not executed by the appellants. The ground in support thereof was that one of the coparceners who was the signatory to the promissory note was hospitalised. Consequently, he could not have executed the promissory note on the even date. The High Court has gone into depth of this aspect by consideration of the entire evidence on record, mostly documentary evidence. Since it is a question of appreciation of evidence and the High Court, as the final court of fact, on appreciation thereof came to the conclusion that the promissory note came to be executed by all the persons and, therefore, the appellants-defendants are liable for the payment of the amount due thereunder. This being the finding of fact, we do not find any error of law in the finding recorded by the High Court. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 7. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 512 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... delinquent officers who did not approach the High Court and has submitted the report after completing the enquiry in the charges against that officer. This would show that the Enquiry Officer was functioning on the date of the impugned judgments and the High Court was not right in saying that on that date there was no Enquiry Officer and that the Enquiry Officer had not proceeded between the period 14-9-1990 till date. 8. In the facts referred to above it cannot be said that there was undue delay on the part of the appellant-Corporation in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the respondents or in conducting the said proceedings after serving of the charge-memos. In the circumstances the High Court was not justified in quashing the charge-memos against the respondents on the ground of delay. 9. The appeals are accordingly allowed, the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 511 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rice than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government and the contract will be novation of the minimum price fixed by the Central Government under Rule 3(1) of the Order. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay interest on delayed payment under the Act read with the order. 20. We are informed that these two mills have become sick mills and have been taken over by the Government. If the amount has not been paid already, the Government is directed to disburse the amount within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of this order and recover the amount from the assets of the respondents etc. If there is any shortfall in the amount, the assets recovered from the sick mills, if any, may be fastened as a liability on the sick mills and be adjusted in accordance with the take-over proceedings. 21. The appeals are accordingly allowed. But for the fact that the mills have been taken over, we would have imposed exemplary costs in this case; hence we impose no costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the transferor-respondent. A similar situation arises in the present case. As the Agreement to Sell does not create any interest in favour of the transferee and such land can be treated to be a part and parcel of the holding of the transferor, the result is inevitable that the appellant-State is entitled to succeed. It must be held that despite the Agreements to Sell in favour of the transferees concerned, that had taken place in 1970, the said lands which continued to remain in the ownership of Respondent No. 3 could be legally included as a part of his holding. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court as well as the lower Appellate Court are quashed and set aside and the decision rendered by the Prescribed Authority determining 31 Bighas 10 Biswas 15 Biswansis land as surplus holding of Respondent No. 3, is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
........
|
