|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 599 Records
-
2003 (12) TMI 685 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . 18. By allowing the respondents to file the affidavits and written submissions as to their version and discussing their defense, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has indulged in adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the respondents. Such a procedure or course is strictly prohibited by the provisions of Section 202, Cr.P.C. 19. In view of the aforesaid legal position, petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. Complaint of the petitioner against respondents stands revived and restored. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the matter independent of the affidavits filed by the respondents and solely based upon the allegations in the complaint and statements of complainant and witnesses produced by the petitioner without being influenced by the observations of the then learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order. 20. Petitioner shall appear before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 23rd January, 2004 for the aforesaid purpose.
-
2003 (12) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . 1 that the competent authority duly appointed her as an assistant teacher and she was prevented from joining, as a teacher after leave has to be accepted. Once no order of termination or dismissal is produced, her service has to be treated as stood transferred to the Basic Education Board by operation of law. In that event she has to be treated as continuing in service and salary was accruing every month that accorded her a continuing cause of action. Therefore the question of limitation also won't arise in this case. In this context the view adopted by the High Court is perfectly justified. We don't propose to interfere. The view of the High Court that Respondent No. 1 is entitled to compensation equivalent to the salary for the three preceding years before the date of superannuation on the basis of revised pay is also quite reasonable. 7. Accordingly we dismiss this Petition. The High Court order shall be given effect to within a period of three months from today.
-
2003 (12) TMI 683 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rticle 22(1) of the Constitution. In this case also, since the provisions of Article 22(1) has been violated, the detenu is entitled to be released from detention. 32. But at the same time, the prayer of the Petitioner for unconditional release cannot be granted. The relief can always be moulded depending on the circumstances of the case. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we direct the release of the detenu on bail on his furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer, Special Court for P.O.T.A. Cases, Chennai. and on a further condition that he should report before the Special Court on the First working day of every week, besides appearing on the days of hearing. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Court without the permission of the Court. The H.C.P. is allowed on the above terms. Consequently, H.C.M.P. No. 131 of 2003 is also ordered.
-
2003 (12) TMI 682 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... or loan subject to condition and restriction as may be specified. It concluded that effect of this amendment was not to restrict taking of credit only to case where the capital goods were acquired from a finance company by any of the mode specified in the rule, and that the provision of Sub-rule (3) "will be applicable only in cases (sic) where a manufacturer acquires a capital goods in any manner as specified therein." On this conclusion it held that the appellant before it was entitled to take credit on the capital goods sent to it to Madhouse Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. on bailment agreement. It must be recorded that the Tribunal's decision was not in existence when the Commissioner passed his order. 5. The sole reason for denial of credit, the absence of ownership of the capital goods by the manufacturer cannot be sustained. Credit was therefore rightly taken. 6. Appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside. Consequential relief in accordance with law.
-
2003 (12) TMI 681 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The appeals are, accordingly dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 680 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 directly applied in the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, it was submitted that extra-ordinary power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C ought to be exercised to relieve the petitioner of the sentence by way of compounding of offence adopting an analogy of the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C, even though no proceedings are pending. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C clearly prohibits compounding of offence except as provided by that Section. In these circumstances, the petition requires consideration. However, in the meantime the petitioner, a lady aged 60, is stated to have enjoyed suspension of sentence by an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara and since that period expires on 31.12.2003 and this matter is not likely to be heard before that, the order suspending the sentence is ordered to be continued till the next date.
-
2003 (12) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o him can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to three months pay or with both. The offence has been treated as one of "less heinous offences". More heinous offences are provided in Section 9. The Assistant Commandant has found the explanation given by the respondent o be not acceptable. Therefore, he has been rightly held to have committed a less heinous offence. Taking note of the relevant aspects, we feel the fine of two months pay which respondent was drawing at the time when the proceedings were initiated would meet the ends of justice. By altering the punishment we are not belittling the gravity of offence but, in our view deterrent punishment must be resorted to when such absence is resorted to avoid and evade under taking a testing or trying venture or deployment -essential at any given point of time, and not as a routine in the normal course. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
-
2003 (12) TMI 678 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ppropriate stage if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to charge the respondent for a more serious offence than the one punishable under section 304A, he shall proceed to do so without in any manner being hindered or influenced by the observations or findings of the High Court in the impugned order or by the order of the Sessions Court which framed the charge punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC. Such decision of the Magistrate shall be purely based on the material brought in evidence at the trial. We make it clear that neither by sustaining the order of the High Court in remitting the trial to the court of Magistrate, nor by our observations in this judgment as to the acceptability or otherwise of the material now on record, we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Whatever is observed by us in this judgment is solely for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of.
-
2003 (12) TMI 677 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ates that this Special Leave Petition has become infructuous. The Special Leave Peition is dismissed as such. Question of law is left open.
-
2003 (12) TMI 676 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ction 35 raises a presumption of culpable mental state and as the possession of the contraband articles could not be satisfactorily explained adverse presumption under Section 54 of the said Act can easily be raised against the appellant. Although this is a rebuttable presumption, however, from the evidence on record we find that the appellant has not been able to discharge the said onus. 46. That being the position from the overwhelming evidence (P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4) who have consistently spoken about the search and seizure and recovery of the contraband articles which have been treated to be heroin by the office of P.W. 5 there is no escape from the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the appellant and we arc of the view - it can be satisfactorily concluded that the charge under Section 21 of the said Act has been fully brought home against the appellant. 47. In the light of the discussion held hereinabove the appeal stands dismissed. Narayan Chandra Sil, J. 48. I agree.
-
2003 (12) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 468 and 471 IPC relate to forgery of valuable security, Will etc; forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document respectively. It is no part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is, therefore, no bar. 23. It was submitted by learned counsel for the accused respondent that essential ingredients of the aforesaid offences are absent. That was not the issue before either the trial Court or the High Court. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to delve into that question. 24. Above being the legal position which is fairly well settled, the High Court's view cannot be maintained on the facts of the case. The impugned judgments are set aside. We make it clear that our interference shall not be construed as if we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 25. Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated.
-
2003 (12) TMI 674 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dures which would not only curtail unreasonable procedural delay, but give finality to the litigation at its earliest and, therefore, if it is legally possible and statutorily permissible, the interpretation, which will give rise to multiplicity of litigation, should be avoided. The observations made by Justice Krishna Iyer in this regard are relevant, which read thus -- "Early limitative finality is an utter unreality. Appeals, remands, revisions and reviews offer tantalizing opportunities for dilatory holidaying. Precipitous ,procrastinatory and procrustean justicing process often mar people's confidence in courts." For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. R. K. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, about the maintainability of the Misc. Civil Applications for review of the judgment of the Full Bench, dated 13th March, 2003, is upheld and, therefore, the Misc. Civil Applications are dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2003 (12) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er and award a lesser sentence. We notice that the two appellants who were Government servants have since lost their jobs and all retiral benefits and the prolonged litigation has caused considerable loss and suffering. Bearing in mind the fact that both the appellants have crossed 60 years of age, we think it appropriate that the sentence of 1 year RI imposed by the High Court should be further reduced to a period of 6 months. therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, we alter the sentence awarded by the High Court for offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, 161, 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Act to 6 months' RI. We do not think it is necessary to award separate sentences under other provisions of the Act for which they have been sentenced by the trial court. The sentence already undergone, if any, will be given set off. The appellants are on bail. Their bail-bonds shall stand cancelled. They shall surrender to their bail-bonds. The appeals are partly allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as stated at the Bar that even during the pendency of this litigation the property has changed hands and substantial construction has come up on the property which is likely to create insurmountable difficulties in dividing the property by metes and bounds consistently with the entitlement of the parties. That aspect need not detain us at this stage. We have stated the correct position of law which should govern the suit and the parties. In spite of the preliminary decree having been passed it will be open for the court, at the state of passing a final decree, to see how the law and the equities are to be adjusted and whether instead of actually dividing the property it would be more appropriate to adopt some other mode of satisfying the claims of the parties as per their entitlement. 28. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial court are restored. No order as to the costs. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
2003 (12) TMI 671 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eafter, the proceedings had been initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law stated above, in the opinion of this Court, the complaint as filed before the learned Magistrate had been in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate was totally justified in taking cognizance of the case and proceeding in the matter. The learned Sessions Judge had not considered the facts in issue in the light of the settled principles of law and as such, in the opinion of this Court, it would be in the ends of justice if the order impugned is set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is restored. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge passed in Crl.R.P.No. 91/2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, is hereby set aside and consequently, the complaint stands restored. The learned Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
-
2003 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with the cost to the Respondent No 2 - Decree Holder. The factum of the payment of entire decree amount to the Decree Holder with cost was not looked into by the First Appellate Court or by the High Court nor did it attach any value to the memo of objections for setting aside sale. It is also a settled position of law that a mere non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision in an application is not a ground to reject an application. Since, there is no bar in treating the objection (filed in the present case) as an application to setting aside the sale. Hence- the setting aside of sale by the execution Court is perfectly in tune with the Code. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to look into other aspects agitated by the contesting parties nor to look into the authorities cited before us. Accordingly the order of the High Court affirming that of the First Appellate Court is set aside and order of the Executing Court is restored. 11. Appeal allowed accordingly.
-
2003 (12) TMI 669 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ase that the certificate of posting produced by the petitioner is a bogus or not a genuine one. In this context it is relevant to keep in mind the principles stated by a Division Bench of this Court in Standard Treads Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin wherein it was observed that the court has to see and be vigilant that technical consideration should not be allowed to be pitted against each other, keeping in mind that substantial justice would have a preference because nobody can be understood properly in a claim of vested right of injustice, which would be the result. 6. Admittedly the petitioner had produced copies of the appeals before the appellate authority belatedly. In the circumstances, in the light of the aforesaid decisions I direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals which were rejected by the impugned order on merits in accordance with law. For the said purpose the impugned order Ext.P3 is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed as above.
-
2003 (12) TMI 668 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... We see no reason to interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 667 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he meantime ad interim stay of the impugned order. List the matters in January, 2004 for the purpose of confirmation/continuation of the order of stay.
-
2003 (12) TMI 666 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... us premises on rent at various places to their respective landlords as stated in his statement under Rule 130 of the Companies(Court) Rules, 1959. Production warrant for his production before the Official Liquidator shall be taken out which shall be served at Tihar Jail. The Official Liquidator shall obtain aforesaid informations from him and in case he is not co-operating with the O.L., a report thereof shall be submitted so that Mr.Sharma could be directed to be personally present in Court for recording his statement. The O.L. is directed to comply with the order dated 16th October,2001. Directions issued by this Court on 16th October,2001 in respect of sister concerns of the respondent company shall be carried out and complied with and a compliance report thereof shall be filed by the O.L. within 8 weeks from today. Renotify on 13th February,2004. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the counsel appearing for the Investors' Forum, R.B.I. and to the Official Liquidator.
........
|
