|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 473 Records
-
2000 (1) TMI 1032 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The High Court, in revision, did not interfere with the order of the trial court on 1.2.1999. Hence, the appeal by special leave. 3. In the face of the pleadings of the appellants and the defects noticed by the trial court, no fault can be found with the orders of the trial court or of the High Court. However, it appears appropriate to us, in the interest of justice, to permit the appellant to file a fresh application in the trial court for seeking permission under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to lead secondary evidence supported by a proper affidavit and giving full details necessary to attract the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. 4. In the event such an application is filed within four weeks, the same shall be disposed of afresh on its own merits, by the learned trial court uninfluenced by its earlier order dated 21.1.1997 or the order of the High Court dated 1.2.1999. 5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1031 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he complaints were filed within limitation, merely because the Magistrates, completely contrary to the procedure known to law, chose to return the same without fixing the date for re-presentation, it should not be held that the subsequent filing by the complainants would be held to be beyond limitation. We therefore answer the reference by holding that the date, which is to be taken into account, would be the date on which the complaints were initially presented. They being within limitation, the complaints would have to be held as validly filed and on that count, the accused cannot claim any benefit. We also hold that the act on the part of the court of taking cognizance of the complaints has no concern with the date of filing of the complaint on a proper reading of Section 142(b). 23. We therefore send back the two Criminal Original Petitions to the Hon'ble single Judge to deal with them in the light of the observations made above. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1030 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in jail for a long time is very germane is granting bail for offence of this nature. 3. The motion for bail has been seriously opposed by the learned Additional Solicitor General and also learned Counsel for the aggrieved party-Company. We find some force in the contention of both sides and therefore we adopt a via media as follows The trial Court shall commence taking evidence in this case within one month from today (if not already started) after fixing a schedule of postings from day-to-day and complete the trial before the expiry of three months from today. If the trial is not completed on or before the expiry of three months from today, we direct the trial Judge to release the appellant on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties to his satisfaction. But we make it clear that if the inability to complete the trial is attributable to the appellant, he will not get the benefit indicated above. With these observations and directions the appeal is disposed of.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctual position when the bail application was filed. It would not have been done by the appellant. We feel that lapses on the part of the counsel should not in this case be allowed to prejudice the appellant who is languishing in jail. 3. For the aforesaid reasons we order that the appellant be released on bail on execution of a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. 4. The Appeal is disposed of.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1028 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... als are dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1027 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ction for prosecution of A-2 or A-3 was granted. How the trial court issued process against A-2 and A-3 is not understandable That apart, in the absence of sanction for prosecution of A-3, we fail to appreciate how A-1 could be prosecuted, in the established facts as emanating from the complaint. Before issuing process, the trial court ought to have looked into all these aspects. It failed to do so. There was nothing in the complaint which could justify issuing of process against A-1, since the cash memo did not show the sale of any misbranded food article. The trial court ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint which did not even lay down proper factual matrix for proceeding further. The High Court, therefore rightly, quashed the complaint and the proceedings taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum. We uphold the order of the High Court, though for different reasons stated herein above. 6. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1026 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 16 of the Constitution. The Division Bench accordingly set aside the impugned provisional seniority list and directed the Government of Maharashtra to prepare fresh seniority list in accordance with the directions contained in the impugned judgment. Mr. Sathe, the learned Advocate appearing for the State of Maharashtra took us through the impugned judgment as well as the relevant documents on record but was unable to persuade us to take a different view than the one taken by the High Court. As indicated earlier, the respondent No. 1 and other similarly situated persons were selected by the Select Committee and came to be promoted between 1976 and 1980 whereas the respondent Nos. 2 to 36 were selected by the Select Committee and came to be promoted in 1981 and thereafter. If this be so, in our opinion, the provisional seniority list has been rightly quashed by the High Court. Thus, the appeal is devoid of any substance. In the result, the appeal to stand dismissed with costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1025 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rnment may specify in this behalf, to the President for determination of the question as to whether such person shall be disqualified and if so, for what period Provided that the period for which any person may be disqualified under this sub-section shall in no case exceed six years from the date on which the order made in relation to him under section 99 takes effect. (2) Any person who stands disqualified under Section 8A of this Act as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act. 1975 (40 of 1975), may, if the period of such disqualification has not expired, submit a petition to the President for the removal of such disqualification for the unexpired portion of the said period. (3) Before giving his decision on any question mentioned in Sub-section (1) or on any petition submitted under Sub-section (2) the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission on such question or petition and shall act according to such opinion.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1024 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e purpose of disposal of the assets of the company so that after disposal of the assets needful can be done for the distribution of the sale proceeds. As usual, the sale shall be subject to confirmation by this Court. 2 A sum of ₹ 20,000 shall be deposited by the applicant - bank with the Official Liquidator so as to meet with the necessary expenses for advertisement and for other miscellaneous expenses. 3 In view of the above order, this application is granted to the above extent and the same is accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1023 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... conditional apology, and promises responsible behaviour in future, This court, is In no doubt that Mr. R. K. Agrawal had purposely and with sinister motive misled this court resulting in the erroneous order dated 3-12-99. This Court treats it to be a case of gross misconduct on the part of Mr. Agrawal personally, condemns his conduct, and administers a severe warning on him with the hope that he shall hereinafter conduct himself with the dignity and the sense of responsibility expected of him as lawyer and officer of this Court. Taking into account the overall view of the situation and in view of the remorseful confession of Mr. Agrawal. I accept the unconditional apology of Mr. Agrawal & leave the matter at that. Therefore, there is no need to pursue the matter any further against him. 6. This writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 10,000/- (ten thousand) . No urther action need be taken against Mr. Agarawal, but he is warned to be careful in future.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1022 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 1036 this Court observed, . . . . . . . to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the presiding judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine. He must become a participant in the trial by evincing intelligent active interest. . . . . . . .. An alert judge actively participating in court proceedings with a firm grip on oars enables the trial smoothly negotiating on shorter routes avoiding prolixity and expeditiously attaining the destination of just decision. The interest of the counsel for the parties in conducting the trial in such a way as to gain success for their respective clients is understandable but the obligation of the presiding judge to hold the proceedings so as to achieve the dual objective search for truth and delivering justice expeditiously cannot be subdued. Howsoever sensitive the subject matter of trial may be; the court room is no place of play for passions, emotions and surcharged enthusiasm.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1021 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... continuing to charge even for incoming calls. The license fee structure has been changed w.e.f. 1st August, 1999. Thus Cellular Operators are not paying fixed license fee but are now paying as per the revenue sharing arrangement. Admittedly, the license fees paid by them are much less than what they were paying earlier. Thus there is no loss of revenue as expected but the gain is certainly there. In our view, it is the duty and function of the Authority to ensure that the benefit which the Cellular operators have received is passed on to the consumers. As seen above, it is the function of the Authority to safe-guard the interest of the consumers. We are quite sure that the Authority will keep this in mind and issue necessary directions in this behalf. 51. We also clarify that the Authority may consider whether the CPP regime or a free incoming call regime can be introduced within the terms and conditions of existing licenses and within the policy as framed by the Government.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1020 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for respondent that if the appellant was not in a position to abide by the conditions imposed for granting bail he should have raised his objection at that time or should have challenged the order soon after his release on bail. No doubt he should have done so at the earlier stage. But his failure to do so then cannot now be used as a bar for preventing him from approaching the court with a prayer to release him from jail. He cannot be detained in custody for long without conviction in a case of this nature. 6. We therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. We order the appellant to be released on bail on his executing a bond in a sum of ₹ 25,000/-, with two solvent sureties, to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1019 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Ex. P-4. The period of 14 days ought to have been calculated from the date of publication of the withdrawal notice in the Official Gazette i.e. 20th September, 1997 and so calculated we find that the application which was filed by the appellant (misc. case no. 125/97) as also the earlier application (misc. case no. nil/97) filed by him were both within the statutory period of 14 days calculated from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. The High Court, under the circumstances, fell in error in dismissing the substitution applications filed by the appellant on the ground of limitation only. The impugned order of the High Court, thus, cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for proceeding further treating the substitution application to have been filed under Section 110 of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation. The High Court shall take further appropriate steps expeditiously. The appeal
-
2000 (1) TMI 1018 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... n Gopal Das Gujarati v. Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. 1986 60 Comp Cas 920 (Cal) with which we fully agree. 20. In view of our findings that the explanatory statement did not suffer from any infirmities and that the petitioners have not established with full particulars that the consideration for the unit was inadequate and that the consideration received for the unit is more than the assessment made by two independent expert valuers and that non-supply of the valuation reports does not give a right to the petitioners to challenge the sale and that a commercial/business decision taken by the board consisting of independent directors and overwhelmingly approved by the shareholders cannot be challenged by shareholders holding minimal shares, we dismiss this petition. In view of the petition having been dismissed on the merits, we are not dealing with the other submission made by Sri Sarkar on the maintainability of the petition. 21. Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1017 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the option that we have given to him. In case the respondent likes to continue as joint shareholder in the company, then, the petitioner is at liberty to convene a general body meeting within 45 days thereafter in which meeting the presence of a single shareholder would constitute a valid quorum. For the general body meeting, notices should be sent by registered post acknowledgement due with 21 days notices together with the agenda for meeting. No resolution removing the 2nd respondent as a director will be proposed and as long as he continues as a joint shareholder, he will continue as a director. If need be, on an application being made, we shall appoint an observer/Chairman for the said meeting. In case, the respondent opts for the second option of transferring his interest which should be computed at 1,000 shares in the joint holding, then he may move an application for appointment of an independent valuer. 41. With the above directions, we dispose of these petitions.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1016 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ised at the earliest stage. After committal order in the case, the trial was almost over as evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded by the Sessions Court, statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were also recorded, thereafter witnesses were recalled and examined, further statements were recorded and only at the stage of arguments the contention with regard to the so-called irregularity was raised, which is upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court. In the background of these facts, we hold that holding of fresh inquiry under Section 202 would be totally unnecessary in the present case and thereafter to commit the case again to the Sessions Court. 49. Hence, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order passed by the I Ugh Court is set aside and the reference made by the Sessions Judge is answered in the aforementioned terms. The Sessions Court is directed to complete hearing of arguments and dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1015 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the Board were framed. It is stated in the notification, inter alia, that these regulations have superseded the earlier regulations Nos. 50 to 66 of J. & K. Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1967 and any other regulations made thereto and have come into force from the date notified by the Board. The impugned judgment in this case was not based on consideration of the notified regulations in 1995. Further, the incidents giving rise to the controversy raised in the case took place much before the said regulations were framed. Therefore, it is not necessary for decision of the case to consider the provisions of the said regulations. 22. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. It is however, made clear that any action already taken by the authorities in pursuance of the impugned judgment concerning any candidate or group of candidates shall not be disturbed on the basis of the judgment. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1014 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have rejected the same. We are however (sic) lend concurrence therewith since the legislative change introduced Section 115 is clear enough to indicate that an order passed by court subordinate to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, if it is not appealable, would he within the ambit of Section 115 of the Code and thus a revisional application would be maintainable. A revision application against an order which is not appealable either before the subordinate court or the High Court would also be maintainable. 16. In that view of the matter, this Appeal succeeds. The order passed by the Learned Single Judge as impugned in this Appeal stands set aside and (sic)shed and so is the order dated 22.12.80 in review petition. The order the Executing Court dated 31.8.78 thus stands confirmed. 17. In view of the fact of possession of the property being with the purchaser we are not inclined to pass any further order or issue any directive in that regard. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 1012 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... count of non-performance of the duty by the appellant is to the tune of ₹ 2,750. 00 and, therefore, under the Rules of Business, the file pertaining to sanction would have been finally dealt with by the Law Minister and, in fact, he had done so. In this view of the matter, neither there was any necessity for the authorities concerned to place the file before the Chief Minister nor the Chief Minister had any occasion to reconsider the matter and pass fresh order sanctioning prosecution particularly when, taking into account the loss sustained to the ex chequer is to the tune of ₹ 2,750. 00. That apart, the person concerned has already retired in the year 1994 and it is unthinkable that for a loss of ₹ 2,750. 00 State would pursue the proceedings against such person. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of sanction dated 10-12-1997 passed by the Chief Minister for prosecuting the appellant. (7) These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
........
|
