|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 553 Records
-
1999 (9) TMI 1006 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... be subject to the respondent establishing that there is no unjust enrichment in view of the judgment of this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)
-
1999 (9) TMI 1005 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e insurance/guarantee possibly would stand discharged from its liability to the insured on the exporters delivering the documents of export of goods to the insured, prima facie, the principal debtor would still remain subsisting. Thus, even this pre-requisite for the liability to be called a debt as contemplated by the Act having been satisfied the suits filed by the bank should have been treated by the High Court as proceedings for recovery of the debts. 12. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in holding that the applications made by the bank were pre-mature and till the Court decides that the amounts are still due and payable to the bank they cannot be treated as suits for recovery of the debts as contemplated by the Act and, therefore, they are not required to be transferred to the Tribunal. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the orders passed by the trial Court.
-
1999 (9) TMI 1004 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Lajpat Nagar Police Station to produce the child indicates that the entire episode is by way of stage maneuvering. We, therefore, find sufficient force in the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants. But having had the opportunity of ascertaining the views of young Akansha, as already stated, and in view of our conclusion that the child does not want even to talk to adoptive parents, we are not inclined to interfere with the direction of the Delhi High Court allowing the custody of Akansha to the natural mother until appropriate decision of competent forum is obtained with regard to the validity of the adoption deed as well as the custody of the child in question. We accordingly dismiss these appeals. We, however, make it clear that any observation made by Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment with regard to the validity of the registered deed of adoption or with regard to the suitability of the custody of Akansha will not be binding in the pending proceedings.
-
1999 (9) TMI 1003 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax paid in cases where the declarations are ineligible under Section 64(2), such a forfeiture would be confiscatory and unconstitutional, unless it is properly qualified. It was further held "It appears to us that the intention of this section was only to state that there will be no cash refund of the tax paid in pursuance of the declaration made under sub-section (1). It will not, however, stand in the way of adjustment of the amount if the declaration itself is not acceptable as not falling under Section 64(1)". 8. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, it cannot be said that the Revenue can retain the tax paid and the petitioner is not entitled for the refund. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to refund the tax paid under the declaration dated 27-12-1997 to the petitioner herein within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order unless adjustment is made towards any arrears. No costs.
-
1999 (9) TMI 1002 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t a grossly premature stage as this. For all the aforesaid reasons we are unable to concur with the impugned judgment. We, therefore, quash it. Learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the fact that all the accused persons arrayed in the complaint are residing at Indore in Madhya Pradesh and he apprehends that revival of investigation in the case would most probably embroil them in a miserable position if they are arrested. We considered that aspect in the view we now take and we also foresee such a plight for the accused. To alleviate any possible hardship for the respondents we direct that if any of the respondents is arrested in connection with the above complaint, he shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on execution of a bond to his satisfaction. However, such arrested person shall be bound to report to the investigating officer at the place and time specified for the purpose of interrogation. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (9) TMI 1001 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the written statement. The objection was pressed and pursued by arguing the same before the Court. However, the petitioner persisted in pursuing the petition without proper verification which the petitioner should not have been permitted to do. In our opinion, unless the defect in verification was rectified, the petition could not have been tried. For want of affidavit in required form and also for lack of particulars, the allegations of corrupt practice could not have been enquired into and tried at all. In fact, the present one is a fit case where the petition should have been rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law as to pleadings. 36. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find the ultimate finding arrived at by the High Court liable to be interfered with. The dismissal of the election petition by the High Court is upheld though for the reasons set out in this judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to the costs.
-
1999 (9) TMI 1000 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... her those functions could be considered sufficient to hold that he was in charge of the affairs of the company are matters which have to be gone into during the trial. The trial court will come to its own conclusion on this aspect and the observations in this order shall not be related as findings of fact. 19. In the result, the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992CriLJ527 cannot be said to have been satisfied in this case. 20. In the result, this petition is dismissed. 21. However, it is open to the petitioner to move the trial court for dispensing with his personal attendance inasmuch as it is now stated that he has left the company and has accepted a job in some other place and there is no reason for the trial court for not considering such a request subject to the requirement that he is represented by someone and subject to the requirement of his presence on the specific dates of hearing as directed by the trial court.
-
1999 (9) TMI 999 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ould be that justice may be done and not to deny justice on sheer technicalities under the garb of law. That when additional powers are available under 227, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under sec. 115 CPC, but there is no bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, particularly in such a case, where the order of the Court below tantamounts to illegal refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and refusal to try the suit on merits and has the tendency to cause injustice and injury to the party. 13. In view of the above, this Court exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, hereby quasi order impugned and issues direction to the Court below to entertain the suit restored herewith and decide it on merits, taking that the question of limitation has been decided in this Court that the suit is within limitation. Petition is allowed. Costs of the petition are being made easy, that is, parties to bear/their own costs.
-
1999 (9) TMI 998 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Motion No. 1272 of 1999 is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). Prayer Clause (a) reads as under "(a) That the suit be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 1 l(a) of the C.P.C., 1908 and other applicable provisions, as being without jurisdiction". Notice of Motion No. 1638 of 1999 is also made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). Prayer Clause (a) reads as under "(a) Order the plaint in Suit Lodging No. 2284/99 to be struck out as being unnecessary, scandalous frivolous and vexatious and also being an abuse of the process of the Court under Order 6, Rule 16 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and Article 215 of the Constitution of India." The suit as also Notice of Motion No. 1663 of 1999 are dismissed with costs. Costs quantified at ₹ 50,000/-. A sum of ₹ 25,000/- to be paid to each defendants. Certified copy expedited. Private Secretary is permitted to issue an ordinary copy of this order to the parties. 21. Plaint rejected.
-
1999 (9) TMI 997 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h entitled them to a writ of mandamus or any other directions of a like nature; and pending such determination it might have made a suitable interim order for maintaining the status quo ante. But when the court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under Article 226 of the Constitution. The language of Article 226 does not permit such an action. 44. The Division Bench decision in the case of Mahesh Yadav (supra) is only an ex parte order in terms whereof the writ petition stood finally disposed of without calling upon the informant and the investigating agency which therefore, did not lay down the correct law. The third question stands thus answered. 45. Let the petition be placed before the Division Bench with our answers to the questions referred to us.
-
1999 (9) TMI 996 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es, the Court below is fully justified and competent to direct the petitioners to deposit the amount of outstanding dues of the respondent advocate and to reject the applications exh. 77 and 79 of the petitioners wherein the Court was informed about discharge of the respondent advocate and adjournments were sought for. 25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed on merits. The interim order passed by this Court stands vacated. Rule is discharged, with further special cost of ₹ 50,000/- besides the cost awarded by the Court below. 26. After pronouncement of this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the interim relief granted by this Court may be extended for a further period of four weeks to approach the higher forum. I do not find any substance in this prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, this prayer is rejected.
-
1999 (9) TMI 995 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... had intended to include officers of instrumentality or agency for brining such officers under the protective umbrella of Section 197, Cr.P.C. it would have done so expressly. Therefore, it will not be just and proper to bring such persons within the ambit of Section 197 by liberally construing the provisions of Section 197. Such exercise of liberal construction will not conform to the permissible limit of interpretation of a statute by a Court of law but will amount to legislation by Court. Thus, in his capacity as Managing Director of M.P. Leather Development Corporation, the accused could not seek protection of Section 197, Cr.P.C. In any view of the matter regarding his status, his contention that prior sanction either under Section 197, Cr.P.C. or under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was necessary to prosecute him for alleged offence has no substance. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court at once.
-
1999 (9) TMI 994 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he appeal is admitted. Tag with Civil Appeal D. No. 9293/99. No Stay
-
1999 (9) TMI 993 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y in the cause title of the plaint. 10. Thus the matter would have to be permitted to go to trial. Even otherwise the courts are very reluctant to dismiss a plaint at the threshold unless the plaint is plainly and obviously devoid of any cause of action. This can only be when the plaintiff does not even have an arguable case. Such is not the situation in the present case. In my view, the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie arguable case. In view of the fact that I have, prima facie, come to the conclusion that the arrest of the vessel was justified, no relief of damages or for provision of security as claimed in prayer Clauses (b) and (c) of the Notice of Motion could be granted to the defendants. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the Notice of Motion. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. Private Secretary is permitted to issue an ordinary copy of this order to the parties. 11. Notice of Motion dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 992 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (ii) is answered accordingly. 16. As regards question of law No. (iii) that the State of Madhya Pradesh is a proforma party and has to be impleaded under Order 1, Rule 3-B, Civil Procedure Code, the omission to implead the State of Madhya Pradesh as a party is an irregularity and not an illegality. Irregularity can be cured. This view is taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brijraj Singh v. Shrimati Bitto Devi, 1991 (2) MPJR 279. 17. The plaintiff/respondent has also moved an application I.A 6265/99 before this Court under Order 1, Rule 3-B, Civil Procedure Code for impleading the State of M.P as party. 18. Thus, on the facts, as discussed above, the suit filed by the plaintiff without specifying the land and the map of the land in dispute could not be decreed. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is set aside and the plaint is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 991 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le into any area of the State of Tamil Nadu for use or sale therein. The ban under Article 286(2) is only on the sale or purchase which occasions such import, whereas the tax under Section 3(1) is on the entry of motor vehicle into any local area. Hence the contra arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The decision of this Court reported in R. Gandhi v. Union of India, 1997(3)CTC255 , is an answer to the constitutionality of the impugned Act. Hence it is unnecessary to discuss the same further, in the light of the binding decision of this Court. 14. Under these circumstances, I hold that the impugned Act will apply on the entry of any motor vehicle into the local area of this State whether by way of import from foreign countries or by purchase from other States and, Union Territories. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 769 of 1991 and 12942 of 1995 are closed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 990 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the witness that the jeep meant for government officer was used by the Congress workers is not established as having been done at the behest of the returned candidate. Therefore, this view of the learned Judge has got to be upheld. He also noticed that there was no clear or direct evidence to prove that the first respondent has misused his official position as a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly. We agree. In the result, we allow the appeals C.A.Nos. 7395-7396/97 filed by the returned candidate and set aside the order passed by the learned Judge declaring his election to be void on the ground that he has incurred necessary disqualification as provided under Article 191(1)(c) for being chosen to the Assembly as Member thereof on account of the fact that he was an undischarged insolvent. So far as the appeal C.A.No. 8361/97 filed by the unsuccessful contesting candidate is concerned, the same has to be and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (9) TMI 989 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... basis of when the reserved candidate at level 3 would have got his normal promotion, treating him as junior to the senior general candidate at level 3. Chander Paul v. State of Haryana (1997)10SCC474 has to be understood in the manner stated above. 96. We hold accordingly on Point 4. 97. We dispose of the clarification applications IAs 1 to 3/98 filed by the State of Punjab accordingly and hold that Ajit Singh and Virpal lay down the correct law and not Jagdish Lal, which must be considered as confined to correct law and not Jagdish Lal, which must be considered as confined to its own peculiar facts. We shall be passing separate orders in the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan cases and Contempt Cases and other IAs on the basis of the principles laid down in this judgment which, for convenience will be called Ajit Singh II. 98. IAs Nos. 1 to 3/98 are disposed of accordingly. 1. In Jagdishalal, the hierarchy of posts is Clerk, Assistant, Deputy Superintendent. Superintendent, etc.
-
1999 (9) TMI 988 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pproved, which inter alias also laid down that if there is a possibility of the defendant succeeding and thereby bringing about termination of the proceedings by an order being passed the other way, the order would be an appealable because the order involves an adverse determination or adjudication to a valuable right of the defendant. 12. There is no manner of doubt that upholding of the objection of the appellant ultimately is likely to have an effect of terminating the proceedings initiated by the respondent as was ordered by learned Single Judge in the other execution case against which the respondent has preferred an appeal. For that reason, we are of the view that applying the tests laid down in Shah Babulal Khimji's case (supra), the appeal would be maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. We direct that the appeal be treated as one having been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 13. To be de-registered as F.A.O. (OS) and be registered as L.P.A.
-
1999 (9) TMI 987 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... roceeding is concluded, question of making any payment pursuant to the order of this Court would not arise. In view of the stand taken by the Management in the show cause filed, we see no justification for initiating a contempt proceeding, as in our view the non-payment of the alleged due is not on account of any deliberate violation of the Court's orders, but on account of the pendency of a departmental proceeding. 2. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.
........
|
