|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 558 Records
-
2000 (9) TMI 1093 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the result of the suit. 6. In this case, strictly speaking the provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act are not attracted as it was a State debt which was recovered by the Collector under the Punjab Land Revenue Act whereas Gurbir Singh is enforcing agreement in his favour allegedly executed by M/s Daulat Industries. State debt has to be given precedence over private liabilities. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability of Rs. 3,89,894/- arose against M/s Daulat Industries since before 29.10.84. He further submits that the agreement dated 29.10.84 was devised to defeat or delay the claim of the creditor i.e. the State in this case. He submits that all these points can be gone into by the court if Satish Kumar is ordered to be impleaded as defendant. For effectual and complete disposal of the suit, it is necessary that Satish Kumar be allowed to be impleaded as defendant in the suit. So, this revision is allowed. 8. Revision allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1092 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on that award could only be upto the amount claimed by the claimant. Hence High Court order granting compensation more than what is claimed cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence the review itself, as is confined for the aforesaid reasons, has no merit. 18. The faint submission was also made that example relied by the High Court for enhancing the compensation being agreement to sale should not have been relied. Firstly, we would not like to enter into this question as scope of review was not to re-assess or reappraise the evidence which was considered by the High Court and finally dismissed by this Court. Even otherwise while fixing the market value, in totality of circumstances if any rate is specified in a document, namely, agreement to sale, that could not be said to be either inadmissible or if considered makes the fixation of valuation illegal. Hence we do not find any merit in this review petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1091 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... all the three accused were not produced from jail custody and some time either one or two accused were produced. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners further shows that this Court has passed order in Cr. Misc. No. 4260/2000 to take action against the jail authority if the petitioners are not produced in Court and expedite the trial. 8. As the petitioners are in jail custody it is desirable that their trial should be expedited and for this their production from jail custody in Court on the date fixed in the trial is necessary. The trial Court will ensure that henceforth on all the dates fixed in the case the petitioners are produced from jail custody and if they are not produced in that case, the trial Court is again reminded to take necessary action in accordance with law against the person/persons responsible for this default. 9. There being no merit in this application, the same is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Narayan Roy, J. 10. I agree.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1090 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts to be heard and preparation of judgment once again. The very object underlined in Section 465 of the Code is that if on any technical ground any party to the criminal proceedings is aggrieved he must raise the objection thereof at the earliest stage. If he did not raise it at the earliest stage he cannot be heard on that aspect after the whole trial is over. 7. The premise adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is patently erroneous. The Sessions Court which tried the case for the offence under Section 376, IPC continued to have jurisdiction to try the same, and the order of committal was legally valid. The appeal filed before the High Court could only be disposed of on merits and not on the premise erroneously taken by the learned Single Judge. He has not considered the appeal on merits. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment. We remit the case back to the High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh on merits. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1089 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, this Court or the High Court while deciding the sufficiency of the evidence would not resort to the perusal of the case diary and sit in appeal over the judgment of the investigating officer but as the Trial Magistrate is apparently shown to have recorded wrongly with respect to the facts allegedly noticed in the case diary, this Court vide order dated 17-7-1998 had no option but to direct the counsel of the respondent-State to produce the documents referred to in the report filed under Section 173 of the CrPC. 6. On perusal of FIR, the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC and all other documents accompanying it, we are satisfied that no case is made out against any of the appellants and the pendency of the proceedings against them before the Magistrate is an abuse of process of court. The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court dated 8th April, 1997 and Magistrate dated 6-7-1996 are quashed and the appellants discharged in terms of Section 239 of the CrPC.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1088 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd 11-1-2000 and 12-1-2000, therefore, unexplained delay adversely affected the continued detention of the petitioners. 19. Since we have found that the relevant and important material i.e. revocation of order of co-accused Arun Kumar Jain was not considered by the detaining authority while passing the detention order of the petitioners and there was also unexplained delay in disposal of representation of the petitioners, which vitiated the detention order and rendered continued detention of the petitioners illegal, we need not discuss the other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and writ petitions are liable to be allowed on the above grounds. 20. We, accordingly, allow the Habeas Corpus writ petitions Nos. 8521 of 2000, 14203 of 2000 and 18748 of 2000 and since the continued detention of the petitioners had been rendered illegal, we direct the respondents to set the petitioners at liberty forthwith, if their detention is not required in any other case.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1087 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iated by the State Bank of India, IIBI towards their claim against the Company in Liquidation. The OL is directed to make the aforesaid payment as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 8 (eight) weeks from today. (v) It is directed that the ratio between the secured creditor and the workers will be worked out by the Chartered Accountant namely H.Parikh & Company. The CA will work out the ratio of distribution between the workers on the one hand and the secured creditors on the other hand and submit his report to the OL within 3 (three) months from this date. The OL shall furnish the report of the CA to State Bank of India- secured creditor and and TLA. It is made clear that it will be open to any of the parties to challenge the said ratio and to make their submissions as regards the report that may be submitted by the CA. The OL is permitted to encash the FDRs for making payment as directed above. 5. Further hearing of this application is adjourned to 4.12.2000.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1086 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... "M.L. Pattom" boat was so attached to Ramankari Police Station. PW. 38 is the owner of the boat and he said PW1 was the driver of the boat. So, there is very strong possibility that PW1's boat would have been utilised for disposing of the body if 1st accused was the culprit. 19. We are not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction of his client is solely based upon the testimony of witness PW 1 and his deposition is not corroborated in material particulars. The circumstantial evidence produced in the case is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. It does not lead to any other inference than the one of his involvement in the crime. We do not feel any reason to disagree with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the High Court in so far as involvement of A1 in the commission of crime of murder is concerned. 20. There are no merits in both the appeals which are accordingly dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1085 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gh Court, therefore, was entitled to correct the error which was based upon a construction of the aforesaid document. The different Clauses of the lease deed unequivocally indicates that the sum of ₹ 1,500/-p.m. was the consideration money for parting with the possession of the premises and allowing the Singer Sewing Machine to do business in the premises. 6. In the aforesaid premises, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the High Court committed error in interfering with the finding of the Appellate Authority under the Control Order by way of re-appreciating the evidence. In our considered opinion, the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the conclusion of the Appellate Authority and correcting the error of the said Authority, as already stated. In the premises, as aforesaid, this appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1084 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... kgs. without any disclosure of country of origin etc. cannot be called contemporaneous imports. The quantity shown in that Bulletin is much less than the quantity imported by the appellants. We also note that the said Bulletin does not disclose the country of origin. Further, the appellants have imported the goods directly from the manufacturer in which case, the value of the goods is bound to be on the lower side. We also note that the Revenue has not adduced any evidence for rejection of the transaction value and the certificate given by the manufacturer confirming the sale price. As such, we are not convinced that the transaction value has to be rejected on the basis of one or two entries made in the Bulletin, which in any case, does not have any legal backing. Even after taking the said transaction value into account, the same cannot be held to be contemporaneous. As such, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1083 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... allegedly for a song or at a throw away price. 26. The inaction of the appellants in approaching the Court, almost after three years of the impugned lease deed is an additional circumstance to doubt their bonafides in challenging the impugned action. During the pendency of the litigation between the parties, a huge project has actually, by now, come into existence where the production has also commenced. Respondent No. 5 is claimed to have spent a sum of ₹ 73.01 crores as of 30-10-1999 on the project. Interference at this stage will not only adversely affect the business of respondent No. 5 but would also render a large number of people unemployed and deprive the State its cherished desire of developing the industrial growth. 27. Under the circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgments or the action of the respondent-State in granting the lease to respondent No. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1082 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rores within a period of four weeks from today. So far as the condition (b) imposed in paragraph 18 of the order, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the object for which an accused is granted bail and the impossibility and/or severity of satisfying the said condition, we would alter the said condition (b) by directing that it would be open for the accused to furnish corporate guarantee to the extent mentioned in paragraph 18(b) of the aforesaid order to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate where the case is now pending. The Magistrate should be fully satisfied about the solvency of the corporate guarantee. All other conditions mentioned in paragraph 18 of the aforesaid order would remain operative and prosecution should take expeditious steps for completing the criminal proceedings. The corporate guarantee as aforesaid should be furnished within eight weeks from today. 7. The Special Leave Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1081 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s are barred by limitation on the date of issuance of the cheque dated 23-4-1989. But, the Court found that in respect of the alleged two time barred pro-notes, the accused has paid interest on various dates and thereby the pro-notes have not become time barred. In this case, the complainant has no case that the accused has paid interest on the amount borrowed from him in 1987 and there is valid acknowledgement of the debt within the period of limitation. As noticed earlier, since there was no acknowledgment of the debt before the expiry of three years from the date of loan, the debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of the cheque. 9. For the reasons stated above, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I see no infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court. This appeal is groundless and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
2000 (9) TMI 1080 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... exemption from payment of tax. The question of law raised is covered by Division Bench of this Court reported in the case of Hiralal Bhagwati 2000 161 CTR (Gujarat) Page 401. We, therefore, decline to entertain this appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1079 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -A was rightly invoked by Respondent No.i against Respondent No.2 and also against the vessel M.V. Af Tabish, which, according to Respondent No. I, is renamed as MM. Al Quamar and, which according to him, still belongs to its judgment-debtor Respondent No.2. Whether the said contention is right or wrong will have to be examined by the High Court under Order XXI Rule 58 of the C.P.C., as noted earlier. We say nothing on this factual aspect. All that we hold in the present proceedings is to the effect that the execufon petition on demurer was rightly held by the High Court as maintainable before it. The second contention of Mr. P.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the appellant, therefore, is also devoid of any merits and stands rejected. The appeals, therefore, fail subject to the liberty already given in the judgment of brother Banerjee, I to the appellant to take away the ship subject to furnishing of suitable bank guarantee of a nationalised bank as indicated therein.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1078 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s started by the department, would not, in our view, come in the way of giving him the benefit of the assessment by the first Departmental Promotion Committee in his favour in the anterior selection. There is. therefore, no question of referring the matter to a larger Bench. In the SLP, we have not thought it fit to send matter back to the Division Bench which had dismissed the appeal as time barred and on the ground that the Advocate was not present. In our view, this is not a fit case to remand the matter to the High Court because the only argument addressed by the learned Additional Solicitor General before us is that the earlier judgments of this Court cited above and relied upon by the learned Single Judge require reconsideration and that question cannot obviously be raised before the Division Bench of the High Court. We have, therefore, considered the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge on merits. The Special Leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1077 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f votes. No other point was raised before us. 13. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the election petition on deciding Issue No. 5, which was treated as a preliminary issue and read thus Whether the election petition lacks in material facts and particulars, necessary to constitute complete cause of action for setting aside of the election of the respondent No. 1, within the meaning of Section 83, read with Sections 100(1)(d)(iv) and 123 of the Representation of People Act.? For what we have said above, the order of dismissal of the election petition, without putting it to trial, cannot be faulted with. 14. For our reasons, which are somewhat different from the ones given by the High Court, we find that the decision of the High Court to non-suit the election petitioner by deciding the preliminary issue against him is well merited. There is no merit in this appeal. It, consequently, fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1076 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tablished that it was 'necessary' in the earlier suit to decide the question of title for granting or refusing injunction and that the relief for injunction was founded or based on the finding of title. Even the mere framing of an issue on title may not be sufficient as pointed out in that case. Thus, it was open to the statutory authorities under the 1911 Act to go into the collusive nature of the suit in the proceedings under Section 7 of the 1911 Act as stated above. The High Court has not gone into the merits of the decision of the Collector and the Appellate authority but has allowed the writ petition solely based on the Full Bench decision in Jagar Ram. We have now overruled the Full Bench decision. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the writ petition to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law, in the light of the above observations. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1075 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In the meantime the licensee purchased the property from the owner. This Court held that even though the licensee may have purchased the property from the registered owner, still the licensee could not, deny the title of the lessor. This Court held that the licensee must first surrender possession and seek his remedy separately in case he has acquired title. There could be no dispute with the proposition of law. But they have no application so far as Swaroop Sonar and the purchasers under sale deeds of 12th October 1942 and 4th December 1948 are conscerned. These parties were not claiming any rights under the mortgage. For the above reasons the Appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment is set aside. The suit will stand dismissed. In the view which we have taken, it is not necessary for us to consider the cross objections which had been filed by the 1st Respondent. This Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1074 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t under Article 22(5) must be taken recourse to in establishing the basic fact and particularly in arriving at the requisite satisfaction leading to the making of the order of detention and it must be communicated to the detenu with a view to enabling him to make an effective representation there against. 32. In that view of the matter it is neither for the detaining authority nor for this Court to consider as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the detenu or not by reason of non-supply of documents in the language which is known to him and thus such a contention would be of no moment. 33. In view of our findings aforementioned, we have no other option but to allow this application and direct that a writ of Habeas Corpus do issue. The respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith unless he is wanted in connection with any other case. 34. Release order be communicated to the respondent No. 3 by special messenger at the cost of the petitioner.
........
|
