|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 629 Records
-
2000 (8) TMI 1147 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ntral Government. 3. Mr Chidambaram draws our attention to the appeal which was filed before Cegat. The said appeal was filed not only against the determination of the designated authority but was filed also against the Customs Notification dated 27-10-1998 whereby anti-dumping duty was imposed. This aspect was apparently not brought to the notice of this Court when it passed the order dated 11-5-2000 (2000) 118 ELT 305 and the order of Cegat itself does not refer to the Customs Notification dated 27-10-1998 and that is why, probably, the Court was led to believe that the appeal had been filed before the issuance of the notification of determination. 4. It is clear from the facts brought to our notice that determination as contemplated by Rule 18 had taken place with the issuance of the Notification dated 27-10-1998 and, therefore, an appeal under Section 9-C would be maintainable to Cegat. 5. Issue notice returnable after four weeks. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1146 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Delay condoned. The appeal is dismissed on merits.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecting a re-count by the Court In his submission the grievance raised before the High Court was fully capable of being taken care of at the trial of the election petition to be filed after the declaration of the results and so the bar of Article 329(b) was attracted. In this connection he invited our attention to Chapter XIV-B Counting of Votes of Handbook for Returning Officers (1998) issued by Election Commission of India. This is an aspect of the case on which we would not like to express any opinion as the requisite pleadings and material are not available before us. 36. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside. No order as to the costs. 37. We make it clear that anything said in this order shall not prejudice any plea raised or any issue arising for decision in any election petition which has been filed or may be filed and the same shall be decided on its own merits un-obsessed by any observation made herein.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1144 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ue of jurisdiction in the context of suit being barred by limitation, is framed and decided in the first instance before proceeding to decide the suit on any other issue. If the said issue is answered against the plaintiff, then it would be wholly unnecessary for the trial Court to undertake the extensive exercise of recording of evidence with regard to the rival stand on the merits of the case. This would enable the Court to decide the proceedings with utmost dispatch and would subserve the purpose with which section 9-A has been introduced by the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1977. 11. In the circumstances, the revision would succeed and the order passed by the Court below dated 9th December, 1999. below exh. 34 in Special Civil Suit No. 170 of 1999, is set aside. The trial Court is directed to frame preliminary issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitation, and decide the same in accordance with law. 12. Rule made absolute in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d many of these officers may be on the verge of superannuation, the High Court would do well in finalising the seniority within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. Writ Petition No. 490/87 is accordingly allowed. Writ Petition Nos. 1252/90 and 14114/84 are accordingly dismissed. Writ Petition Nos. 707/88, 856/88 and 764/88 stand disposed of in terms of the directions given herein-above. Application for impleadment filed by Mr. R.C.Chopra in Writ Petition(Civil) No.490/87 is allowed. Application for impleadment filed by one Ms.Rekha Sharma in Writ Petition(Civil) No.1252 of 1990, stands rejected, since in this batch of cases, we are concerned with the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees, who are appointed prior to the amendment of the Rules in 1987 and the applicant Ms. Rekha Sharma was appointed in January, 1988. The application for impleadment by Shri J.B. Goel in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 14114 of 1984 stands allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1142 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rit petition that he had filed and that that order contemplated that the Arbitrator, acting on the arbitration Clause in the agreement, would have the authority to award restoration. In the first place, we do not find any such observation in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In any event, such observation, even if it were there, would not vest the Arbitrator with a jurisdiction that he did not otherwise possess in law. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant would move the respondent for continuation of the distributorship, which he continued to hold till date by reason of orders of the courts. The respondent shall, if the appellant makes such application, consider and decide it on its merits. 9. The appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order under challenge is up held. Thus" the relief given in the award in respect of issue No. 6 shall stand deleted and the relief's given under issues 1 to 5 shall stand. 10. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1141 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l evidence is permitted it would divest the rights of other parties to the written document. We are, therefore, of the view that the subsequent oral arrangement set up by the defendant-appellant cannot be proved by the parol evidence. Such an evidence is not admissible in evidence. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant then urged that Ex. A/1, in fact is not a settlement deed but is a Will and, therefore, parol evidence is admissible to substantiate the subsequent oral arrangement. This controversy also arose before the trial court. Before the trial court, the plaintiff and the defendants agreed that Ex. A/1, is a settlement deed and not a Will and the trial court proceeded on the basis that the document Ex. A/1. is a registered settlement deed. We are, therefore, not deposed to entertain the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1140 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re and assumption. It may be just possible that the property may be found to be not partible by metes and bounds. In that case, it cannot be said that there is division of tenancy and apportionment of the rent. This plea thus is not going to improve the case of the defendant in any way. 29. The defense raised by the defendant thus needs no investigation. As already noticed, lease deed, rate of rent, termination of tenancy by efflux of time stand admitted or are not disputed and need no investigation. A decree for possession thus can be passed in the circumstances. 30. This application is accordingly allowed and a decree for possession of the tenancy premises, namely, 19 Friends Colony (West), New Delhi as per lease deed Ex.P-1 is hereby passed in favor of the plaintiffs, defendants No. 2 and 3 and against defendant No. 1 with costs so far as this relief is concerned. Defendant No. 1 is given one month's time to vacate the premises. 31. This application stands disposed of.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1139 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... scheme whereby, it can grant respective sites at such prices as it may determine and settle the dispute. This is only a suggestion to reduce unnecessary litigation and not a direction to BDA. Nor is it intended to create or recognise any right in any of the petitioners. 90. For the reasons stated above, we find that petitioners are not entitled to any relief, and these petitions are dismissed, subject to the observations above, reserving liberty as follows (i) to petitioners to approach Civil Court for appropriate relief where they are entitled to such relief; (ii) to Bangalore Development Authority to take action for eviction dispossession, either before the Civil Court or by initiating action under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, where petitioners are in settled possession; and (iii) to Bangalore Development Authority to take action for demolition and dispossession, where petitioners are not in settled possession.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1138 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xtent of para No. 18 and 19 so far Annex. F is concerned. (16). In para 22 of the written statement, it has been submitted that petitioner has purposely suppressed the identity of the counting agents who had prepared the documents contained in Annex. G and the documents therein are false and fabricated documents. In para 17 of rejoinder, the same has been denied. Further, as reference has been made in para 22 also with respect to the proceedings that documents were not supplied as per the requirement of the provisions of Sec. 81 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and the earlier dispute which had been decided by this Court and ultimately went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, actually do not relate to a new factual plea. Thus, the same is rejected. (17). Thus, in view of the above, the rejoinder is permitted to be filed only to the extent of para 18 and 19. Ordered accordingly. (18). List this case on 03.4.2000 for filing Admission/Denial of documents at 2 00 p.m.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1137 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stray suggestions are put, it cannot be said that instances suggested are in breach of Rule 4. 16. Under the circumstances, this court finds that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merits and same is required to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim stay granted on 15th June, 1989 by this Court stands vacated. The accused is directed to surrender himself before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamnagar to serve out the sentence imposed vide judgment dt. 12th December, 1983 rendered at Column No.7 of Summary Form Ex.2 in Criminal Case No. 1735 of 1983 rendered by 4th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) & J.M.F.C., Jamnagar which is confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar who rendered his judgment Ex.11 on 24th February, 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of writ of this Court by trial Court. Office is directed to send the writ of this order to the trial court forth with, for execution.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... g the disputed period. No presumption that whatever income was shown by them in the sales tax return for the year 1992-93 was the result of sale of furniture by the appellants, could be legally drawn by the Commissioner. He was duty bound to hold an independent enquiry regarding the actual manufacture and clearances of the furniture, made by the appellants during the period in question. For having not so done his impugned order cannot be legally sustained. 12. In the light of the discussion made above, both the grounds put forth by the counsel for setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner deserves to be accepted and the case deserves to be sent back for fresh decision after affording full opportunity to the appellants to present their case. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and the appeal of the appellants stands accepted by way of remand. The case is sent back to the adjudicating authority for afresh decision in accordance with law.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1135 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e respondent vide letter dated 4-5-2000 to consider "revoking the indefinite suspension in the trading of this scrip" - effected from 16-5-1996. In this context it is made clear that a company and its promoters are separate legal entities. A company cannot be substituted for promoters for the purpose of imposing penalties. It is also seen that the respondent had asked ASE to consider revoking the 4 year old ban on trading in the appellant’s scrips, but at the same time by the impugned order the appellant has been debarred from accessing the market for the next five years 9. In view of the above, I do not consider it necessary to examine the other points raised in the appeal as it is evident that the impugned order has been directed to the appellant without any justification. 10. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned order against the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1134 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... atra, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1133 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nce. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come. The approach adopted both by the Authorised Officer and the High Court completely ignores the importance of the forests and the purpose of the object for which the Act was made. As the appellant-State has not prayed for quashing the order of the Authorised Officer we refrain to deal with that even though we do not approve it. We are, however, satisfied that the High Court had adopted a very casual approach while disposing of the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides that the order impugned is contrary to law, we have our reservations with respect to the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the matter which we do not express in this case. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned, passed by the High Court is set aside.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1132 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e is clear denial of the execution of such document by the plaintiff, hence the High Court fell into error in applying the said proviso which on the facts of this case would not apply. In view of this the very execution of the Gift Deed Exhibit B-1 is not proved. Admittedly in this case none of the two attesting witnesses has been produced. Once the gift deed cannot be tendered in evidence in view of the non-compliance of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, we uphold that the plaintiff has successfully challenged its execution. The Gift Deed accordingly fails and the findings of the High Court contrary are set aside. In view of this no right under this document accrue to the concerned respondent over Schedule A property which is covered by this gift deed. 12. The High Court order to this extent stand set aside. The claim of the appellant to the extent of 2/5th share over Schedule A property succeeds. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. Costs on the parties.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1131 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r the scheme on one hand and the bulk shares/controlling block of shares required to be disposed of in accordance with the machinery formulated hereinabove. These norms are evolved only to draw the distinction between shares which could be sold in a routine manner through the Disposal Committee and shares which are required to be sold through the mechanism mentioned hereinabove, so that the Court keeps its control in the matter of implementation of the Scheme qua the bulk shares/controlling block of shares. This categorisation would also lead to equal distribution of work between Disposal Committee on the one hand and the Court on the other. This categorisation is also evolved so that there should not be destabilisation of a company. 11. CONCLUSION In conclusion, I am ordering sale of all registered shares except Apollo Tyres for the time being. 12. In the light of the above discussion, Misc. Petition No. 64 of 1998 is disposed of. No order as to costs. 13. Order accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1130 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n all other respects I fully agree with the high-wrought observations, views and conclusions of the learned Chief Justice. 82. I have also a passing observation. Unlike other statutory rules, the Rules of the High Court of Kerala are framed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and all other enabling powers "to regulate its procedure". Since it is not possible to discern such a procedure either in the Act or the Rules as to how a single Judge should adjourn the matter to the Division Bench or the Division Bench to Full Bench and as it is now felt it to be desirable to provide for the process and procedure of adjournment and reference, it is for the High Court to take up the matter in a legislative exercise. ORDER OF THE COURT 83. In view of the majority judgment rendered by Savant, C. J. the order of the Court will be the order as per paragraphs 50, 51 and 52 above.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1129 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tter for remitting back to the authorities below for exercising such discretion, as the matter relates to an assessment year 1979-80, we deem it appropriate to consider the case on merits, instead of remitting the matter to the authorities. Considering the claim of the petitioner that it was under a bona fide impression that the turnover relating to the matches is not liable to tax at multi-point, the levy of maximum penalty at five times the tax due may not be appropriate. Further, taking into account all attendant facts and circumstances of the case we deem it proper and reasonable to reduce the penalty to three times the tax due in the place of five times the tax due that was levied by the assessing officer, which was confirmed by the appellate authorities. 13. Under the above circumstances, the order under revision is accordingly modified, reducing the penalty from five times the tax due to three times the tax due. The revision is accordingly by allowed in part. No costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1128 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... clared that the petitioner is entitled to normal increment from 1st June, 1985 till the date of his retirement. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector by ignoring his adverse entries as aforesaid as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to release normal and regular increments of the petitioner from 1st June, 1985 and to pay all the difference of arrears of such increments within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents are also directed to fix the salary of the petitioner after releasing regular and normal increments from 1st June, 1985 and to pay whatever arrears available to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 10. Petition allowed.
........
|
