|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 473 Records
-
1996 (7) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the co-accused was not granted bail. That was sufficient for the court when it considered the accused's application for bail. Besides, it was the prosecution/ complainant's duty to bring to the court's notice that two applications of the co-accused for bail were rejected. If the accused did not mention it, nothing prevented the opposite side from placing it on record. It seems to be an omission on the part of the prosecution/complainant's side but, for that it would be wrong to charge them with having suppressed facts. So also for the accused, more particularly because, there is no positive evidence to attribute knowledge to the accused. Hence we think this ground is unsustainable. 12. There is no evidence of the accused having threatened anyone while on bail. 13. For the above reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court cancelling the bail and restore the order by which he was released on bail. Appeal will stand so disposed of.
-
1996 (7) TMI 601 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, it cannot be said that the presence of the intervenors was necessary to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit effectually and completely. A person is not to be added as a defendant merely because he would be affected by the judgment. The main consideration is whether or not the presence of such person is necessary to enable the Court to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. The intervenors the purchasers of property during pendency of suit were neither necessary nor proper parties for adjudication of the points involved in the suit viz. title to the suit property and, therefore, the provision of O.1, R. 10 was not attracted. 8. In view of my above discussion, I hold that the present application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., has no merit and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 9. Nothing stated above, shall amount to my expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 10. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 600 - CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN BENCH, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Collector concerned to requantify the demand on the basis of relevant documents. This was not correct on his part. It should have been requantified by him for the four financial years and within the period of five years of the show cause notice after going through the evidence on record. We, therefore, direct the Adjudicating Officer namely the Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur in whose jurisdiction the factory is located, to requantify the demand himself after going through the evidence on record. At this stage, Shri P.R. Biswas, ld. Consultant submits that the appellants herein would be entitled to certain permissible deductions under Section 4 of the Act. Since this point had not been taken by the appellants and was not the subject matter of adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority, he may take that plea into account after suitable evidence is adduced by them at the time of requantification in terms of the aforesaid Order. Pronounced and dictated in the open Court.
-
1996 (7) TMI 599 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reciprocity. We make it clear that if the condition No, (ii) is not fulfilled by the end of Dec. 1996, the Government will be at liberty not to establish the primary health centre at Pachhikote and can shift to any other place. It is admitted before us that the staff who were appointed to run the P.H.C. at 'Pachhikote' are working at Korei P.H.C. The Grama Panchayat was agreeable to offer the Grama Panchayat building for running of the health centre. If the building is still available, the same should be utilised for the purpose of running of the P.H.C., till the new building is completed. The Government should see either to divert the staff from Korei or make suitable arrangement for running of the P.H.C. in the building of Pachhikote Grama Panchayat. Necessary arrangement should be made within a period of three months from today. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. I agree.
-
1996 (7) TMI 598 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... either in August or September 1995, the position would have been different and as the Board's action was illegal, the petitioners would have been entitled to restoration of possession. The petitioners could have also filed suits under S. 6 of the Special Relief Act, 1963 within six months of the date of dispossession. They did not do so. As petitioners have approached this Court belatedly, they are not entitled to any relief. 16. It is however necessary to record a fair offer made by the learned counsel for the Board. He stated that plot Nos.24/A and 15A in the layout are presently available for allotment and as a gesture of goodwill, the Board is even now ready to allot the said plots to the petitioners at the same rate at which the resumed plots was allotted to them, provided the petitioners unconditionally approach the Board for allotment of the said plots within 45 days from today. Recording the said submission, these petitions are dismissed. 17. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 597 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he test to be applied in this behalf has been set out by this Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.Sharma 1996 (3) SCALE 202 . It was the duty of the respondent to point out how each and every document was relevant to the charges or to the enquiry being held against him and whether and how their non-supply has prejudiced his case. Equally it is the duty of the Tribunal to record a finding whether any relevant documents were not supplied and whether such non-supply has prejudiced the defendant's case. Since this has not been done the Tribunal in this matters it has to go back for a rehearing. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal of the Original Application in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this Judgment. It is obvious that the scope of the enquiry shall now be confined only to ground No.3 indicated hereinabove. There shall be no orders to costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 596 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... all now be initiated against the departmental officials for their established administrative breaches and violation of the codal provisions, in 1979-80. Consequent upon their acquittal, the official respondent shall be reinstated in service with continuity of service for all purposes but for their established administrative lapses and breach of codal provisions etc., they shall not be entitled to any back wages or any other type of monetary benefit for the period they remained out of service. The suspension allowance, if any, received by all or anyone of them shall however not be recovered from them. This punishment appears to us to be commensurate with the gravity of their lapses and shall serve the ends of justice. Those of the officials who may have reached the age of superannuation in the meanwhile, will get their pensionary benefits calculated on the basis of their continuous service but they shall be entitled to draw pension with effect from the date of this order only.
-
1996 (7) TMI 595 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng process and that may be the reason that Scheme does not postulate payment of interest from the Fund. Reference may also be made to the decision of one of us ( D.K.Jain,J.) in Ram Ganga Fertiliser etc Vs.Union of India and others, C.W.2062/93 decided on 30th July 1993 holding that where a specific stipulation for payment of interest by petitioners to respondent exists in the Scheme and such a stipulation for payment of interest to the petitioner is absent, there have to be compelling reasons to award interest for which facts of each case have to be seen. The position is similar in the present case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the petitioners are not entitled to payment of any interest. We find no compelling reasons to award interest in favour of the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons we allow the petition to the extent indicated herein before and to that extent make the rule absolute leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 594 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 114 (P&H), CIT vs. Globe Transport Corporation (1991) 93 CTR (Raj) 121 (1992) 195 ITR 311 (Raj) TC 56R.520, CWT vs. R.S. Seth Ghisalal Modi Family Trust (1987) 61 CTR (MP) 102 (1988) 169 ITR 530 (MP), CWT vs. Devi Chand Sawhney (1991) 187 ITR (St.) 43, CIT vs. K.L. Bhatia (1990) 84 CTR (Del) 152 (1990) 182 ITR 361 (Del) TC 54R.172 and Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji AIR 1970 SC 1273, it is ruled that the Tribunal has no power to review or recall its order. 7. In view of the discussions made above keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases and in the absence of any statutory provision for review by Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by Tribunal recalling its earlier order which was passed under s. 256 of the Act, deserves to be quashed. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dt. 22nd Dec., 1993, is hereby quashed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 593 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itrators declare their award. In our opinion, these factors are not sufficient to make this case an exceptional case justifying interference by restraining the appellant from enforcing the bank guarantees. These appeals are, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside. However, in view of the fact that no stay was granted by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and in view of the statement made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 that the arbitrators are likely to declare the award within a short time, we direct that the appellant shall not call upon the bank, Respondent No. 2 to discharge its obligations under the bank guarantees till 31st July, 1996. If by that time the arbitrators declare the award then obviously the parties will have to reconsider there position in the light of the correct legal position and the observations made in this judgment. The Respondent No.1 shall pay the cost of these appeals to the appellant.
-
1996 (7) TMI 592 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ssed by the Tribunal in the rectification application made by the appellant which is stated to be pending. The appeals are dismissed, the point of law relating to the applicability of Section 14 of the Customs Act to goods exported duty free being left open. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 591 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Union of India who ultimately had to bear the burden of payment of the compensation was held to be a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for determination of the compensation in respect of the acquired land. In Bihar State Electricity Board vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (199) 4 Supp. 3 SCC 743 the same question was also reiterated and it was held that the Electricity Board was a person interested and also a necessary party. In Anil Kr. Singh vs. Shivnath Mishra (1995) 3 SCC 147 similar question was answered holding that the respondent was a necessary party. In view of the finding that the in the event of building being demolished, right, title and interest of the landlord would directly be affected, the landlord would be a proper party, though no relief has been sought for against the landlord. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court impleading the landlords. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 590 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Sen, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 589 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld thereafter proceed with the disposal of properties in future. As far as allotment to the petitioners, viz., Ajay Memorial School, Ashok Trehan Memorial Charitable Trust and Manav Mangal Society and Lt. Col. Y.P. Mahindru, in these special leave petitions is concerned, the same will be subject to the above directions and in the event of their non- acceptance, the properties should be put to public auction along with other sites and buildings. The plots allotted to the rest of the petitioners other than these cases where notices were issued, will be subject to the directions issued by the Division Bench. The other unallotted plots also should be put to public auction as ordered by the Division Bench. 7. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly ordered. SLP Nos. 12720-23 of 1996 8. Issue notice returnable within four weeks. In addition dasti service also is permitted. In respect of the plot covered in these petitions, it would be subject to orders after service of notice.
-
1996 (7) TMI 588 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the construction of a freezing chamber cannot be separated from the plant and machinery because they are an integral part of the cold storage. Therefore, depreciation for fibre glass is admissible as in the case of machinery and plant. Therefore, question No. 1 has to be answered against Revenue and in favour of assessee. 4. So far as the question No. (ii) whether the word plant includes within its ambit building in which machineries are installed for manufacturing purposes is concerned, it may be said that in fact the plant cannot survive independent of building. Some building has to be there in order to house the plant; and as such, the building which houses the plant is a plant. Therefore, the plant includes within its ambit building in which machineries are housed. The same view has been taken by Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanodia Cold Storage (supra). 5. In the result, both the aforesaid questions of law are answered against Revenue and in favour of assessee.
-
1996 (7) TMI 587 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... the legacy vested in the legatees, including the husband of the appellant, at the time of testator's death and after the death of her husband, the appellant is entitled to claim the one-fifth share of her husband in properties mentioned in Schedule "A", "B" and "D" in addition to properties mentioned in Schedule "C" viz, the thrift deposits standing in the name of the appellant's husband in the Bank of Mysore Ltd. 24. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside to the extent it denies the appellant one-fifth share in the properties mentioned in Schedules "A", "B" and "D" and it is held that apart from the share in properties mentioned in Schedule "C", the appellant is also entitled to one- fifth share in the properties mentioned in Schedules "A", "B" and "D". as held by the trial court. There is no order as to costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 586 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ear that the bank is not concerned with the ultimate decision of a court and a tribunal in its finding after adjudication as to the amount due and payable by the petitioner to the first respondent. What would be material is the quantification of the liability in the letter of revocation. The bank should verify whether the amount claimed is within the terms of the bank guarantee or letter of credit. It is axiomatic that any payment by the bank, obviously be subject to the final decision of the court or the tribunal. At the stage of invocation of bank guarantee, the need for final adjudication and decision on the amount due and payable by the petitioner, would run contrary to the terms of the special contract in which the bank had undertaken to pay the amount due and payable by the contractor. Thus we hold that there is no question of making out any prime facie cause much less strong evidence or special equity or exceptional circumstances for interference by way of injunction.
-
1996 (7) TMI 585 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of the learned single Judge is set aside. The interim order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. The interim order passed by the learned single Judge in Notice of Motion No.1953 of 1983 stands vacated insofar as the property of Mr. Warli is concerned. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 prays that order dated 20th September, 1989 passed in Appeal No. 1015 of 1989 which is operative for a period of 3 months from today. Learned counsel for the appellants states that no such order is required as the appellants would not transfer, alienate or dispose of the property in question or create any further third party right therein for a period of 8 weeks from today. The above statement is taken on record. In view of the above, it is not necessary to pass any order on the prayer of the appellants for stay of this order. Issuance of certified copy of this order is expedited. 13. Appeal allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 584 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ected the appeal of the assessee. 4. The assessee is still aggrieved and has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. Shri Atul K. Jasani, the learned counsel appeared for the assessee and Shri V.S. Gore, the learned Departmental Representative, appeared for the Revenue. After hearing both the parties I am of the view that the Assessing Officer as bound to rectify the order in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court cited above. Since the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that the filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B was merely a procedural formality for the purpose of enabling the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of exemption to the trust and such procedural defect only makes the return become defective and rectifiable, the assessee is to be given the benefit as the defect has since been removed by filing of Form No. 10B. The Assessing Officer is directed to rectify the order accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 583 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... wami, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
........
|
