|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 520 Records
-
2002 (11) TMI 816 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be regarded as admission of guilt, 23. In our opinion, the appellant was not given proper opportunity of hearing and no oral enquiry as required by law was held. Hence the dismissal order dated 26.7.1985, is wholly illegal and is hereby quashed. The Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.10.1999, is also set aside. The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. The normal rule is that when the dismissal order is set aside reinstatement with full back wages has to be granted vide Kesoram Cotton Mills v. Gangadhar,; Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Its Employees 1978 LIC 1667 (SC) and M.L. Bose v. Its Employees AIR 1961 SC 1178 etc. We direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated within a month of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, and he must be given full back wages from 26.7.1985, i.e., the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement within 2 months from today along with interest at 10% per annum.
-
2002 (11) TMI 815 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... had alleged in para 27 of the writ petition that the trial that was being held was unfair as the law officer and the prosecutor were determined to deny him a fair trial and were endeavoring to get him convicted by unfair means. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is at the instance of the appellant himself the respondent authorities took steps to dissolve the court and constitute a fresh court to protect the interest of the appellant. In such situation, we cannot permit the appellant to contend that any prejudice will be caused to him by such consequential reconstitution of the court. That apart, we notice that the respondents were well within their authority under Section 71(4) of the Border Security Force Act to issue the impugned order. The question of double jeopardy also does not arise because the petitioner was not either convicted or acquitted of the charges against him in the first trial. 5. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 814 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ar that defendant Nos. 5 to 8 have been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation. The plaint in this suit appears to be a case of clever drafting. Prima-facie, it does appear that the averments have been introduced without any factual basis, only to try and bring the case within the directions of the Supreme Court in Vishaka's case. But the plaint as amended has averments necessary to entitle the case to go to trial. Thus, though I am of the view that the suit is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints , the remedy of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 lies in having the suit dismissed, after an adjudication on merits. It is always open to the plaintiffs to invite the Court at the first hearing to exercise power under Order X of the Civil Procedure Code. 36. The Chamber Summons are dismissed but in the circumstances costs shall be costs in the cause. Parties to act on ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Chamber Registrar/C.S. of this Court..
-
2002 (11) TMI 811 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e appellate court that they were well after passing the decree. Out of seven documents, one document was marked as Ex.A10 before the Trial Court. One document was in no way relevant with the case. All the other five remaining documents are after the decree was passed. Unfortunately, the appellate court failed to consider the said factors, but, mechanically allowed the application which is evident in the impugned order, nothing is whispered about the relevancy of the documents. Mere repetition of Rule 27 CPC is not sufficient to allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Moreover, no valid reason is also assigned by the appellate court for departing from the general rule. In the result, the order passed by the appellate court is set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed with costs. However, considering the circumstances of the case, I direct the appellate court to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
-
2002 (11) TMI 810 - CEGAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... t in the light of the ratio of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Jindal Strips Ltd. 2002 (139) ELT A. 190. (f) KWH METER These items are used in measuring power consumption and is in a nature of measuring equipments and the benefit is required to be granted in the light of the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Autoline v. CCE, Bangalore 2001 (130) ELT 952 (T) where in the Tribunal has granted the benefit to the measuring instruments. (g) TELECOMMUNICATION CABLES These items are required for pertaining control equipment and date processing machines used in operation of the equipments and hence they are held to be entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit in the light of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore. In view of the above citations of each of the terms noted above, we uphold the assessees claim and grant the benefit of Modvat to them by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
-
2002 (11) TMI 809 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... shna, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 808 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... y condoned. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 807 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... enue’s appeal against the said decision has been dismissed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4241/1996, C.C.E. v. Finolex Cable 1997 (96) E.L..T. A229 dated August 21, 1997. In this view of the matter, the civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 806 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Advised Cane Price and whether It is only the Central Government which can fix the minimum cane price under Clause 3 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. Hence the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are clearly distinguishable. Moreover, the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2086 of 1997, decided on 1.2.1999, has been stayed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 3281 of 1999, West U. P. Sugar Mills Association v. V. M. Singh and Ors. vide order dated 22.3.1999. 8. It appears that yesterday, an order was passed by the State Government fixing the State Advised Cane Price by press release, dated 12.11.2002. We, therefore, stay the operation of the order, dated 12.11.2002, fixing the State Advised Cane Price and we direct the State Government to desist from fixing the State Advised Cane Price till further orders in view of the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 36889 of 1996 and the order of the Supreme Court dated 22.1.1997.
-
2002 (11) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t go to House of Lords by way of appeal." For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The order of the Trial Court drawing up the decree is set aside. The parties are allowed liberty of moving the High Court under Section 152 CPC seeking appropriate rectification in the judgment of the High Court so as to clearly specify the extent and manner of reliefs to which in the opinion of the High Court the successful party was found entitled consistently with the intention expressed in the judgment. The delay which would be occasioned has to be regretted but is unavoidable. Once the operative part of the judgment is rectified there would be no difficulty in drawing up a decree by the High Court itself in conformity with the operative part of the judgment. If the rules of the High Court so require, the ministerial act of drawing up of the decree may be left to be performed by the Trial Court. The appeal stands disposed of in the abovesaid terms with no order as to the costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 804 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court under appeal holding that there was violation of the Fundamental Rights of the writ petitioners under Article 14 is justified and needs to be upheld. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench that the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 38 dated 16.1.2001 (Annex. P-4) despite the judgment of the Single Judge and the pendency of the writ appeals filed by the State Government and the HUDA before the High Court was contumacious on the part of the State Government. We think that the Division Bench took a somewhat gracious view of the matter in not inflicting punishment for contempt of Court, but rested content with quashing the offending G.O. Ms. No.38 dated 16.1.2001 (Annex P-4). In our view, the appellants appear to have been lightly let off. There is no scope for interference on this count. In the result, we uphold the judgment of the High Court under appeal and dismiss the appeals. No costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 803 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r favourably to the accused applicant in spite of the availability of grounds to the contrary set out in the order of the Sessions Court. Independently of the order of rejection passed by the Sessions Court, the High Court may grant bail to an accused person, yet it would be sound exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of High Court if the order of the High Court reflects that the High Court had in mind the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court for refusing bail. The impugned order of the High Court suffers from this infirmity. 9. The impugned order of the High Court granting bail to the accused respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The respondent No. 1 shall forthwith surrender to custody. However, we clarify that the right of the accused respondent No. 1 to apply and seek bail afresh is not taken away, which prayer if made shall be dealt with and disposed of on its own merits consistently with the observations made hereinabove. 10. The appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 802 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... find anything to rebut the statutory presumption. Therefore, even if we find that the purchase was funded by her husband or the construction was made out of the sources received from the husband, still by reason of section 3(2) of 1988 Act, it is to be presumed that it was done by the husband for the benefit of the wife, the defendant No. 1. Conclusion 6. For all these reasons, we are unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. In our view, the plaintiff has not been able to prove his case that the transaction was a benami one. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief in this suit. ORDER 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree dated 6th January, 1993 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 6th Bench in Title Suit No. 2358 of 1981 is hereby set aside. The Title Suit No. 2358 of 1981 is hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. J. Banerjee, J. - I agree. Appeal succeeds.
-
2002 (11) TMI 801 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... ention of the assessee to hide the identity of the lender. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the identity of the lender to whom repayment has been made is known to the Department and the genuineness of the loan transaction is not in doubt. Hence, in our considered opinion, it cannot be held that the breach of law, if any was deliberate. The default, if any, at most be said to be a technical default. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steels v. State of Orissa 1972 83 ITR 26 that penalty cannot be levied merely because the authorities are empowered to levy and when there is technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, the authorities competent to impose penalty shall be justified in refusing to impose the penalty. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and reject the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue. 7. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 800 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference as the Department has failed to establish that spent palladium catalyst is a marketable commodity. Hence, these appeals are dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 799 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e records show that the Company had financial transactions with the ninth respondent since the year 1958 as borne out by Annexure R-17. The Board resolution dated 5-8-1996 (page 179 of counter) shows that the Company was permitted to sell its entire production to the ninth respondent. Moreover, there has been no record to show that the Company suffered revenue loss on account of sale of the salt by the Company to the ninth respondent. There is no merit in the plea of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the members may convene a general body meeting after allotment of additional shares in favour of the petitioners as ordered supra, and hold a meeting of the shareholders for the appointment of directors and vest with the Board of Directors the day-to-day management of the Company and the Board may take such action as may be deemed fit in the interest of the Company and its members. 8. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 798 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the State to find out ways and means to get the approval for the balance 57 rooms released as the functioning of the full hotel would be a boost to the development of tourism in the State. This would also be in consonance with the sentiments expressed by both the sides in their meeting held on 25.11.1998. "Hon'ble Chief Minister also assured Mr. Oberoi that his Government is committed to the promotion of tourism and travel trade in the State and in this respect would welcome the enhanced presence of the prestigious Hotel Groups such as EIH Limited in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Mr. Oberoi in his turn thanked the Hon'ble Chief Minister for his good wishes and cooperation extended to his Group in this respect and assured that the EIH would be very happy to invest further in the State of Himachal Pradesh for promotion of tourism" (Page 30 of Supplementary Affidavit of the State). 33. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 797 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd the suits are remitted to the Trial Court. CONCLUSION 143. In the result, for the above reasons and findings recorded on various points for consideration, C.C.CA Nos. 110 and 111 of 1993 and C.C.CA Nos. 5 and 148 of 1994 and C.C.CA No.162 of 1995 are allowed. The suit being O.S. No.29 of 1983 filed by the plaintiff Krishna Murthy and the suit being O.S. No.37 of 1983 filed by Koteswara Rao, fifth defendant on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 144. C.C.CA Nos. 112 and 113 of 1993 filed by Dr. Srisailam, sixth defendant, are allowed and the suits being O.S. No. 468 and O.S. No. 73 of 1983 shall stand remitted to the Trial Court for proper adjudication, having regard to the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932. The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 796 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court in the case of Jan Mohammed v. CIT 1953 23 ITR 15 at 26 in support of his contention that the additional evidence can be considered by the Bench while giving effect to the order of the Third Member. We are unable to agree with the contention of the assessee. It may be noticed that this very evidence was furnished before the Third Member which was not admitted by the Hon’ble Third Member. At any rate, as per section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when a Third Member decides the issue, the Division Bench which has originally heard the case should merely decide on those points as per the opinion of the majority and on the same point, it cannot take a different view. The evidence which is sought to be placed before us, at this juncture, does not pertain to any new point in dispute and therefore, the same cannot be accepted at this stage. We, therefore, do not take additional evidence on record. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 795 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Appeal admitted. Tag with civil appeal No. 4483/2000. No stay.
........
|
