|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 985 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plaintiff in O.S. 65/1988). It was filed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties on the allegation that Nagakumar having no right over the properties after the death of Jinachandra Gowder is trying to trespass into the property and trying to cause obstruction to the enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs' right. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant as a co-sharer to the plaint schedule properties. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiffs filed A.S. 16/1989 before the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery. The learned Sub-Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, this Second Appeal is filed. 19. In view of my findings in S. A. 223/ 1994, this Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, all the above appeals are dismissed. No costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 984 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact it is not to his disadvantage but it is an advantage that a single complaint is lodged against the accused by the complainant. The cause of action giving raise to a complaint is upon the service of notice contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not upon the dishonour of the cheques and therefore the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the provisions of Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. are not applicable to the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be accepted. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The filing of the complaint and cognizance taken against petitioners 2 to 4 are quashed. However, the petition filed by the 1st petitioner viz., the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 983 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd has to pronounce the judgment in all circumstances. But the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case (supra) clearly lays down that for the parties, there is no hiatus between closure of the case for judgment and pronouncement of the judgment and therefore, the parties cannot move any application as there is no stage in between closure of the case for pronouncement of the judgment and actual pronouncement of the judgment. 11. A single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Celestina Rosario v. Mrs. Hariquinha F.D. Rosario (1999 (2) CCC 599 (1997 AIHC 150) (Bom) was also cited. This case takes a view contrary to Arjun Singh's case (supra) without even referring to that decision. 12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I see no reason as to why Arjun Singh's case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. I find no force in this revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 982 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... requires condemnation. 5. What has been stated by A. Raman, J. in the decision cited supra, squarely applies to the facts of the instant case also. All the defects pointed out by the learned Judge in that case cited supra are glaring in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the instant case. 6. The view expressed by A. Raman, J. in the decision cited supra, has been reiterated by K. Matarajan, J. in Sri Shanmugha Priya Finance and Chits Rep. by its Manager N. Murugeshv. V. Durairaja, 1999 (2) MWN (Cri) 89. 7. Having gone through the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. I feel that the learned Judicial Magistrate has exercised his discretion arbitrarily. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani C.C. No. 281 of 1999 is set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani shall restore the case in C.C. No. 281 of 1999 to his file and proceed further in accordance with the law. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 981 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar judgment on 1.6.1994. In as much as the period involved in the present appeals is prior to 1.6.1994, it can be safely concluded that the other judgments of the Tribunal, which were in favour of the assessees, formed the basis for the appellants to entertain the bona fide reasonable belief that the Modvat Credit would still be available to the manufacturer in case the final product is cleared under Chapter X Procedure. In any case, the other two judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate are to the effect that the date of taking of the Credit is the relevant date for the purposes of limitation under the revisions of Rule 57I, which cannot be extended even in case of provisional assessment. Accordingly, we hold that the demands of duties involved in the present appeals are barred by limitation. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants. (Pronounced in the Court).
-
2000 (10) TMI 980 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... situation would be readied where the parties with rival and conflicting interests would come to be arrayed as co-plaintiffs. It is better in the interest of all parties that the plaintiffs who have abandoned the suit are transposed as defendants in view of the new developments. The proper order to be passed in I. A. No. 3993/97 is therefore to transpose the 6th defendant as a plaintiff and to transpose the plaintiffs who have abandoned the suit as defendants. 8. The prayer in I.A. 3993/97, in the circumstances, is allowed with the said modification. The suit is also restored to file. The court below will allow the 6th defendant to bring in necessary amendments to the plaint consequent on the transposition as above and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The original plaintiffs. when transposed as supplemental defendants will definitely have a right to file appropriate written statement and to contest the suit if they so choose the C.R.P. is disposed of as above.
-
2000 (10) TMI 979 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the male heirs, the second and third defendants in O.S. No. 112 of 1986 are the citizens of Singapore and therefore they are not entitled to be trustee. They did not also appear and were set ex parte. The next male heir is only the second defendant and he is a resident of Nagoor, working as Accountant in Dhurga. He is entitled to be trustee and he can maintain the properties mentioned in Ex.A4 settlement deed and he can also recover the A schedule property from the plaintiff. It is decided accordingly. 18. For the reasons stated above, the appeal in A.S. No. 45 of 1988 is allowed and the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 36 of 1986 are set aside and the suit in O.S. No. 36 of 1986 is dismissed. The appeal in A.S. No. 191 of 1988 is allowed and the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 112 of 1986 are set aside and the suit in O.S. No. 112 of 1986 is decreed as prayed for. To avoid further bitterness among the family members, there shall be no order as to costs in the appeals.
-
2000 (10) TMI 978 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aring in mind the ratio of the aforesaid cases and applying the same to the facts of the present case as indicated in the complaint itself, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the appellant had been directed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to be present with police force and remove the encroachment in question and in course of discharge of his duty to control the mob, when he had directed for opening of fire, it must be held that the order of opening of fire was in exercise of the power conferred upon him and the duty imposed upon him under the orders of the Magistrate and in that view of the matter the provisions of Section 197(1) applies to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, there being no sanction, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is bad in law and unless he same is quashed qua the appellant, it will be an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash the criminal proceeding, so far as the appellant is concerned.
-
2000 (10) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reason of the increase in the height of the dam by 5 meters from its present level have already been satisfactorily rehabilitated and also that suitable vacant land for rehabilitating all those who will be ousted by the increase in the height of the dam by another 5 meters is already in the possession of the respective States. (8) This process shall be repeated for every successive proposed 5 meter increase in the dam height. (9) If for any reason the work on the Project, now or at any time in the future, cannot proceed and the Project is not completed, all oustees who have been rehabilitated shall have the option to continue to reside where they have been rehabilitated or to return to where they were ousted from, provided such place remains habitable, and they shall not be made at all liable in monetary or other terms on this account. 311. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The connected matters are disposed of in the same terms. 312. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 976 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lawyers has become a matter of acute concern not only for the Courts but also for the professional bodies such as the Bar Council and the Advocates' Association etc. In past deliberations were made both formally and informally to evolve some regulatory mechanism for lawyers. A Division Bench of this Court had in fact suggested framing of rules regarding Advocates-on-record on the pattern of the Supreme Court. Requests in this connection have also come from the Bar Council and the Advocate General. I should take this opportunity to bring this matter to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice who is also a member of this Bench and who may perhaps wish to request the Full Court to frame such rules without any delay and before such unpleasant episode becomes more common. I feel that framing of rules regulating the conduct of lawyers before this Court is an urgent need of the hour. 39. in the result, both the Writ Petition and the Civil Review Petition are dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... After hearing the learned counsel for the department, we do not find any substnatial question of law involved in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 974 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e a reference to the nature of the debt or liability and not the person against whom the debt or liability can be enforced. 20. In K. Krishna Bai v. Arti Press, 1991 Mad LW (Cri) 513, it was held that the impugned cheque issued by M/s. Mudra Graphics Private Limited account for a legally enforceable debt of M/s. Surya Advertising Private Limited would come within the purview of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was issued from and out of the funds of the Accused No. 5 company, but the debt was due from the Accused No. 3 company and therefore, so far as Accused No. 5 Company and the petitioner are concerned, there was no legally enforceable debt. 21. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has not made out a case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M.P.No. 5136 of 1999 is also dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 973 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Appeal admitted. No stay. Tag with C.A. Nos. 5862-63/1999.
-
2000 (10) TMI 972 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s accepted by the respondent without any protest as is apparent from the letter of the claimant-contractor and the question had been raised before the arbitrator in respect of the claim item No. 2 by the Union of India, we think it appropriate to hold that so far as claim item No. 2 is concerned, the same could not have been a matter of reference of an arbitrable dispute and as such, the award of the arbitrator to that extent must be set aside. So far as the order claim items are concerned, the Union of India not having taken any objection to the same on the aforesaid score and that even the objection filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act not being specific on that issue, we do not think it appropriate to allow the Union Government to raise that objection, so far as the other items of claim are concerned. Accordingly, the impugned award in respect of claim item No. 2 is set aside and the rest of the award amount, stand affirmed. The appeal is allowed in part.
-
2000 (10) TMI 971 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... of the provisions of section 409 is that an acquirer of shares in a company should not be allowed to change the Board with the strength of the shares so acquired. In the present case, what is sought is that such an acquirer should he allowed to have a say in the composition of the Board against the desire of the existing majority, which according lo us would be contrary to the objective of section 409. Therefore, we find that this petition, in facts of this case, is misconceived and accordingly deserves to be dismissed. In this connection reference may also be made, as rightly pointed out by Shri Haksar to the decision of this Board in R. Baba Chandrasekar's case (supra) wherein it was decided that the provisions of this section cannot be invoked lo bar existing majority shareholders from exercising their right in deciding on the composition of the Board. 18. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition as not maintainable and vacate all the interim orders. No order as to cost.
-
2000 (10) TMI 970 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 96)6SCC234 We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition to defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious aspersion on the appellants affecting their character and reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also. Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice 45. We therefore, unhesitatingly allow the appeal filed by PW. 30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma) and order expunction of all the disparaging remarks made against him by the trial Judge as well the High Court in the judgments impugned before us. The direction to proceed against his departmentally would also stand deleted. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 969 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tter in issue is directly and substantially the same and the parties are also the same namely M/s Sehgal Knitwears and M/s Shreshth International. Substratum of the relief claimed in the Ludhiana suit will impinge upon the relief claimed in the Delhi suit. Similarly relief claimed in Delhi suit will impinge upon the relief claimed at Ludhiana suit. In this case, the foundation for the cause of action for M/s Sehgal Knitwears and M/s Shreshth International is substantially the same so far as the substratum of the case of each party is concerned and therefore Ludhiana suit which was filed later in point of time was rightly stayed by the learned trial Court. Finding to be recorded by the Delhi Court in the Delhi suit will operate as res judicata as far as the substantive/core issues are concerned which will be decisive of the genuineness of the claim of one party or the other party. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this revision fails and is dismissed. 10. Revision dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 968 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ager, who is not authorized to file the complaint was not maintainable. It has been observed by His Lordship that even if the company or the complainant is represented by the Manager, such Manager shall necessarily be an authorized Manager so that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence. I am in respectable agreement with the view expressed by His Lordship. 13. In view of the circumstances of the case narrated above and in view of the law as laid down in the above cited decision, I have no hesitation to hold that there is no material before the court to show that Mr. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy who instituted the criminal proceedings on behalf of the complainant company has been properly authorized to do so. The complaints under the circumstances must be held to be not maintainable. 14. Hence, these petitions are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in CC Nos. 1552 and 1298 of 1998 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate ,Hyderabad shall stand quashed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 967 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ong with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner, it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. (5) In view of the fact that the appeal arises out of acquisition proceedings initiated in 1969, we expect the High Court to give priority and dispose of the appeal and the application expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 966 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... he affairs of any of the subsidiaries, he is at liberty to move a separate petition before us in terms of section 214(2) read with section 235. 40. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the group as a whole is a family group and as such he cited some judgments as to the nature of just and equitable reliefs that could be granted. We are not dealing with the same in detail as the relief to be granted will have to be decided finally after the hearing the petition on merits. 41. In view of the foregoing we direct as follows The names of all the subsidiaries and their directors be deleted from the array of parties. The 1st respondent company, which had reserved its right to file a detailed reply, will file its reply on the allegations in the petition including those in respect of its dealing with the subsidiaries, by 1-12-2000. The petitioner will file his rejoinder by 31-12-2000. The petition will be heard on 11-1-2001 and 12-1-2001 at 10.15 A.M. on both the days.
........
|
