|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 501 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 664 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other area of controversy now sought to be raised is the failure to hand over the R.C. books in relation to seven vehicles. It is stated in the affidavit and records have been placed before us, to show the circumstances in which the R.C. books could not be handed over in relation to five vehicles. It is stated that with regard to the sixth vehicle, it has been complied with now. As regards the seventh vehicle, it is stated across the bar and also in the affidavit that the vehicle was sold as a scrap; as a consequence, R.C. book could not be handed over. It is stated by Mr. C. Sitaramiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that vehicle was kept stationed and vehicle became a junk because of the conduct on the part of the respondent in not allowing the vehicles to be used. That is not the controversy which we can decide here. Under these circumstances, we do not think that these are the cases for interference. 4. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 663 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he scale of pay which they were drawing on the date of the take over and directed their absorption in the posts of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris etc. Thus, these appeals by special leave. 4. It is seen that since the appellant had not fulfilled the requisite qualifications either when they were initially appointed by the committee before take over nor when statutory rules were made by the Governor so as to enable for absorption. Instead of retrenching them from service due to nor-fulfillment of the requisite qualifications, the Government came to absorb them in the Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris posts etc. to which they are eligible. The Tribunal has given the direction to maintain the pay-scales and to make adjustment and absorption. In our view directions are correct and based on equity and do not call for any interference. They may also be considered for further promotion from the absorbed posts in accordance with the rules. 5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 662 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... second half of 1989-90 has to be set aside. 25. Now turning to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to make representation in this regard to the respondent/Corporation and the Government to exempt them from the payment of property tax in respect of the properties which are the subject matters in these writ petitions for exemption as per Section 167 of the Act, it will be open to the petitioner to make such a representation. 26. Hence, for the reasons stated above. I allow WP No. 13190 of 1992 and quash the assessment in 9029 dated 24.4.1992 issued by the respondent. I set aside the tax claimed by the respondent for the period earlier to second half of 1989-90 in the other writ petitions viz., W.P. Nos. 13191 to 13194 of 1992. Liberty is given to the petitioner to move the respondent/Corporation and the Government to claim exemption under Section 167 of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 661 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ders being time barred not having been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals before us no longer survives for our consideration." The findings recorded by the Tribunal in the judgment dated January 16, 1991, are purely findings of fact and do not give rise to any question of law arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in not referring the proposed questions mentioned in the application for the opinion of this court as none of the proposed questions set out in the application, is a question of law fit for reference to the High Court. We are also of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the order dated January 16, 1991, passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. In the result, we do not find any merit in this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, as no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal, and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... justification in the view taken by the High Court; the substratum of the result is that the appellants have not conducted any enquiry though the respondent had been avoiding to give the reply. Since the respondent had avoided to submit the reply, he has forgone his right to submit his reply. Nonetheless, the appellants are not absolved of the duty to hold an ex-parte enquiry to find out whether or not the charge has been proved. In the event of the Enquiry Officer find that the charge is proved, he would submit his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority should communicate the copy of the enquiry report to the respondent and seek an explanation for the proposed action thereon. If the respondent submits any explanation, the same may be taken into consideration and appropriate order may be passed according to law. Until then, the respondent must be deemed to be under suspension. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 659 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nment and local authorities for their requirement, in other words for their own use it should be treated as wholesale. Admittedly it was sold to bank-cum-banking industries and definition includes whole sale trade means sale to industrial consumers. We do not find any substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order on this issue. 7. As regards appeal filed by the Department it was urged on behalf of the Revenue that Collector (Appeals) erred in allowing abatement of marketing expenses. On going through the impugned order we find that he has given allowance for abatement freight and insurance and not to the market expenses. We find that he has made it clear that market expenses are not allowable and further he has made in his order that no abatement can be given with reference to market expenses as claimed by the party. With this observation all these 5 appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (9) TMI 658 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are not a party. The dispute is between the contractor and the principal employer. We are, therefore, not called upon to pronounce on the rights of the contract labour employed by the 4th respondent to recover these amounts. The appellant, however, who is the principal employer, is not liable to pay this additional amount under Section 21(4). The appellant would, however, be liable under Section 21(4) to pay to the workers any difference between the wages contracted for under its agreement with the 4th respondent-contractor and the lesser wages actually paid by the contractor to contract labour, and recover the same from the contractor. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed as above. The direction of the Division Bench insofar as it directs the appellant to pay additional wages as per the provisions of Rule 25(v)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules. 1971, is set aside. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 657 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t dealing that case and in my view registration of the other case will have no effect upon decision of this bail application. (9) For the foregoing reasons and without, Therefore, in any manner commenting upon the merits of the case and in the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a lady and is already in custody for about one month, I admit the petitioner to bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000.00 (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner will surrender her passport, if not already surrendered, with the investigating agency and shall not tamper with the evidence. She will always make herself available for investigation as and when required by the investigating agency and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (10) Any observation made in this order will have no bearing on the merits of the case.
-
1996 (9) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xercise a power parallel to the power of the District Court or the High Court which have been vested in the District Court and the High Court by the provisions of the Divorce Act. Section 18 provides that any husband or wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void. In that event, it excludes the jurisdiction and authority of any other Tribunal or Court including Ecclesiastical Tribunal (Church Court). 6. As the District Judge had disposed of the application for divorce without any enquiry into the allegation relating to the subsistence of the former marriage, the High Court was justified in remitting the matter to the District Judge for fresh decision in accordance with law. We find no reason to interfere with the said order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 7. Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 1994. ORDER 8. In view, of the order passed in C.A. No. 8782/94 the appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 655 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
... ...
... ... ..... ss of courts or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. That power cannot be exercised when there is a remedy already available. For doubtful or trivial matters also inherent power cannot be invoked." 14. The learned magistrate while passing the order dated December 16, 1993, dismissing the complaint in default and acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had not acted illegally in any manner. The said order on the face of it is legal and falls within the ambit of section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such order of acquittal cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A petition, therefore, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against an order of acquittal passed under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable. 15. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 654 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly constituted selection committee makes recommendation for appointment of the selected candidates the candidates do not get any vested right or legitimate expectation until they are appointed according to the Rules; they have a chance to be appointed as have been selected by the recruitment agency. In that case, the Government had cancelled the select list without any reasons. This Court has laid the above rule in that backdrop. The ratio therein has no application for the reason that after the perusal of the report submitted by the investigating agency, the competent authority had cancelled the selection so that the regular and the proper examination could be conducted giving opportunity to everyone in a fair manner. No prior opportunity need be given in the case of mass copying. It is not the case where a named candidate committed copying. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l Court to entertain the suit based on title. 7. It is settled law that mutation entries are only to enable the state to collect revenues from the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the right, title and interest as to the property should be established de hors the entries. Entries are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property. Mutation entries do not create any title or interest therein. Therefore, the view taken by the learned single Judge, with due respect, is not correct in law. The civil suit is clearly maintainable. The High Court rightly granted injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the land. Even otherwise, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act Us Pen dense always stands in the way of purchaser of the land subject to the result in revision. 8. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of the High Court warranting interference. 9. The appeals accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 652 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Police Officer, though not its admissibility. We next find from the record that the arms and ammunitions allegedly recovered from the appellant and seized were not packeted and sealed. In Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 217 this Court has observed that non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. From the record we further find that there is no evidence to indicate with whom the revolver was after its seizure by P.W.3 till it was sent to the Arms Expert for testing through constable Baita Singh. This missing link also weakens the prosecution case. For all these infirmities we are of the view. that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from his bail bonds. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.
-
1996 (9) TMI 651 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... l statement of the appellant, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order. 7. It is also seen from the impugned order that the investigation against the appellant was initiated on the basis of information received from Delhi Zonal office. However, the learned Adjudicating Officer has not referred to any material on which the said information was based so as to arrive at the finding whether the information was reliable and adequate to initiate investigation. In the course of investigation also, the Department has not gathered any material from the Delhi Zonal office or from the source of the said information to arrive at the truth of the matter. The only action taken by the investigating agency was to have the confessional statement of the appellant recorded. In absence of the material on the basis of which the information was gathered, it is difficult to sustain the action against the appellant. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1996 (9) TMI 650 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cal purposes, they remain components, assemblies or sub-assemblies. (2) The benefit of notification No. 29/83 is, therefore, required to be extended to M/s. Maruti Udyog. (3) The benefit of notification No. 72/93 cannot remain confined to 20 items in the Table annexed and therefore, M/s. Sipani Automobiles are entitled to its benefit as observed by the Vice-President. (4) Further, Public Notice No. 32-PN/92-97 specifically allows import of accessories, components and spares of consumer durables imported by actual users for manufacture of consumer durables. Therefore, the goods were not liable to confiscation and imposition of penalty was required to be set aside in case of M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. (5) Hence, in view of the majority opinion, the impugned orders are modified and it is held that both the importers are entitled to consequential benefit, if any due, in terms of the observations and findings of the Vice-President. Operative portion announced today (10.9.1996).
-
1996 (9) TMI 649 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the City Civil Court on various dates but the respondent No. 1 at no stage objected to their appearance on her behalf either before or after the setting aside ex-parte decree. On a close scrutiny of the evidence and the material on record it can hardly be said that the respondent No. 1 has been able to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant herself is very shaky and unacceptable. It is unfortunate that all these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It was for these reasons that after hearing the learned Counsel for parties on March 21,1996 we were convinced that the impugned order could not be sustained for the reasons that we have given herein before. The appeal and the Special Leave Petition already stand disposed of by our order dated March 21, 1996 and we support the same with the aforementioned reasons.
-
1996 (9) TMI 648 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench. 7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. It may be open to the aggrieved party to assail the correctness of the seniority list prepared by the State Government, if it is not in conformity with the directions issued by the High Court, if they so advised, in an appropriate forum. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 647 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e seized sample was kept in official excise Malkhana. The onus, as held in the case of Laxmidhar (supra), is on the prosecution and it has to satisfy by leading acceptable evidence. The same has not been done in the present case and there being no evidence, the irresistible conclusion is that the seized articles were not kept in safe custody. Thus it is not ascertainable that what was seized only was sent to the Chemical Examiner. As a vital and decisive link is missing, it is difficult to hold that the article seized from the possession of the appellant was the very article which was sent for chemical examination. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. 10. In view of my preceding analysis, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are unsustainable and they are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges. He is to be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. 11. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 646 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ti Lal Bhuriya, who at that time was Minister for Tribal Welfare in the Madhya Pradesh Government, a gas agency to the son-in-law of Mr. G. Ganga Reddy, Member of Parliament and various others. 30. Since the two writ petitions, mentioned above, are pending before the High Court wherein the allotments made to all the persons mentioned above and others, have been challenged, it is not necessary for us to transfer the writ petitions to this Court. We vacate the stay order granted by this Court and dispose of the transfer petition. We direct the Registry of this Court to send all the affidavits filed by the parties in the transfer petition along with annexures to the High Court. We have no doubt that the High Court shall examine the issues involved in the writ petitions and shall also go into the validity of the allotment to petrol pumps/gas agencies to various persons, after hearing them, in accordance with law. We request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the petitions.
-
1996 (9) TMI 645 - ATFEMA
... ...
... ... ..... gether with the tabular statement indicating/outstanding GRIs mentioned in the Annexure to the SCN and indicating there against the related permissions and the amounts outstanding as well as amounts written off. If any of the outstanding GRIs mentioned in the said Annexure is not covered by any write off permission, the appellant shall file extension of time permission, if any, or the evidence that in such extension of time application is under actual consideration of the RBI. If the extension of time has been refused by the RBI, the appellant shall also file the evidence of the efforts, if any, made by the appellant to realise the export outstandings. The appellant shall appear personally or through counsel/authorised representative before the adjudicating authority on 4-10-1996 at 10.30AM in his office or on such other date and time as may be fixed by the adjudicating authority. The evidence herein indicated shall be filed before the adjudicating authority before 4-10-1996.
........
|
