|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 780 Records
-
2007 (3) TMI 833 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sent. The case at hand did not involve compromise or settlement and could not have been disposed of by Lok Adalat. If no compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order can be passed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, question of merger of Lok Adalats order does not arise. 7. Both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench failed to take note of what has been stated by this Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Shri Ganpat Raj AIR2006SC3089 . In the fitness of things, therefore, we remit the matter to the High Court to hear the writ petition afresh. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. While doing so, the effect and relevance of judgment in Munsha's case (supra) shall be considered. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any orders as to costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 832 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en v. Shambu Sarkar (2001) 2 SCC 562 2001 Cri LJ 1082, State of M.P. v. Kajal 2001 CriLJ 4240, Narcotic Control Bureau v. Raju @ Nataranjan (2006) 9 SCC 712, Union of India v. Saurabh Chatterji (2006) 9 SCC 759 and Union of India v. Abdul Momin (2005) 13 SCC 144. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court hold the fields relating to Doctrine of principles of bail in an ND PS Act. 12. For the foregoing discussion, it is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. A. Mohendro, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner made in support of the contention in the bail application. Hence, the application for bail is rejected at this stage on the basis of the grounds stated in the bail application, which is not satisfactory. However, rejection of the bail application will not be a bar for the petitioner to approach appropriate Court on any other ground excepting the ground which this Court has already dealt with in the instant bail application. This bail application stands disposed of.
-
2007 (3) TMI 831 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or the remaining period up to the age of 60 years which was to be paid to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Court's order by the Nigam. 10. It appears that the High Court placed reliance on the decision in Harwindra Kumar's case (supra). Additionally, in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. JT 2006 (10) SC 500 2006 (7) AWC 7435 (SC), the decision was reiterated in the following terms The benefits shall only be confined to above mentioned persons who have filed writ petitions before their retirement or they have obtained interim order before their retirement. The appeals filed against these persons by the Nigam shall fail and the same are dismissed. Rest of the appeals are allowed and orders passed by the High Court are set aside. There would be no order as to costs. 11. In view of what has been stated above the inevitable conclusion is that the appeal is sans merit, deserves dismissal, which we direct.
-
2007 (3) TMI 830 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at Dr. Shankaran had been appointed by the State Government in January 2005 to conduct a discreet inquiry into allotments of certain plots of land made by the Corporation during the tenure of Shri V.M. Lal, the then Vice-Chairman and Managing Director allegedly in contravention of the established Rules, Regulations and Conventions. 21. That consideration, in our view, was not sufficient in the instant case to cancel the allotment which had been made in accordance with the Regulations and the appellants had made payments as directed by the Corporation, which, in fact, was higher than the price recommended by the Shankaran Committee. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court impugned, in this appeal and quash the order dated 29thMarch, 2006 passed by CTDCO as also the Show Cause Notice dated 19thJuly, 2005 on the basis of which the aforesaid order of cancellation of allotment was made. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 829 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the instant case, the matter had been brought to the notice of the highest in the hierarchy of officials. It has passed through the hands of those with legal training who knew better. Certainly the mere fact that the file was carried from one table to another and left there for unexplained duration, cannot by itself be sufficient to condone the delay, if it were permissible. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has failed to render even satisfactory Explanation for condensation of delay even if the same were condonable, which I have held it is not. For all the reasons stated, I.A. No. 9821/2005 is hereby dismissed. So far as I.A. No. 1759/2006 filed by the respondent is concerned, the objections filed by the petitioner are delayed beyond the condonable period and consequently have to be dismissed in the light of the statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Apex Court. In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, this application deserves to be allowed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 828 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this position. 21. We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and hold as follows (i) that for the purpose of calculation of pension, the 'emolument' received by the appellant was Rs. 3,500/- per month and not Rs. 4,237/-. Consequently, determination of consolidated ordinary pension as Rs. 29,220/- per annum from 1.1,1986 is upheld. (ii) As the ceiling on the amount to be added under Clause 2(b) of Part III of First Schedule to the Act is invalid, the special additional pension per annum would be Rs. 5600/- per annum from 1.1.1986 and Rs. 12,800/- per annum from 1.11.1986 in the case of appellant. (iii) Therefore, the total pension was Rs. 34,820/- p.a. from 1.1.1986 and Rs. 42,020/- per annum from 1.11.1986. 22. We direct that the pension due be recalculated and settled accordingly. If any excess payment has been made to the appellant, it shall not, however, be recovered from the Legal Representatives of the deceased appellant. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 827 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... saction that was considered in Commissioner of Interest Tax Vs. M/s. G.E. Capital Transportation, ITA No. 1275/2006 dismissed on 1st September, 2006. The only difference is that in the decided ITA the transaction was a leasing transaction while in the present case the transaction is a hire purchase agreement. Since a hire-purchase agreement is not in the nature of a financing agreement, any interest that the Assessee receives on delayed payment of installments also cannot be said to be interest received on loans or advances made by the Assessee to its customers. Consequently, the second issue urged by learned counsel for the Revenue to the effect that interest received on delayed payment of installments made by the customers of the Assessee is chargeable to interest tax does not raise any substantial question of law. To this extent, the appeal is dismissed. The Revenue will file the paper books in accordance with the High Court rules in respect of the question earlier framed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 826 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... learned Additional District Judge was fully justified in decreeing the appellant's suit for divorce. In our view, in a case of this nature, no other logical view is possible. On proper consideration of cumulative facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, the High Court seriously erred in reversing the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge which is based on carefully watching the demeanour of the parties and their respective witnesses and the ratio and spirit of the judgments of this Court and other Courts. The High Court erred in setting aside a well-reasoned judgment of the trial court based on the correct analysis of the concept of mental cruelty. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge granting the decree of divorce is restored. 78. This appeal is accordingly disposed of but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 825 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng the complaint on oath, states that the accused has deliberately evaded the service of Notice or otherwise. In the absence of such averment in the complaint as well as the statement on oath during the course of verification, the complaint can straightway be dismissed u/s. 203 of the Cr.P.C.. 7 Whether the concerned Firm / Company, Society / Institution, Partner / Director or Proprietor are joined as parties or not. 8 Whether the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 138 of the Act. 9 Whether there are any specific allegations against each accused or not in accordance with the ratio laid down in the cases of Sabitha Ramamurthy & anr. v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya reported in AIR 2006 SC 3086 ( 2006(1) SCC 581, 2006 AIR S.C.W. 4582, 2006 Cri. LJ 4602, 2006(9) Scale 212) and Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2007(2) SCALE 36. 16. Registry is directed to circulate copy of this order to all the Courts below.
-
2007 (3) TMI 824 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the High Court. If there is some indication in the complaint, invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be justified. In the present case the complainant has unequivocally asserted that the cheques were issued in part payment of a loan or advance obtained by the Petitioner. The veracity or accuracy of that assertion should not be gone into by this Court; it is open to be considered in the trial. For the purpose of this proceeding, I am satisfied that such averments conform to the stipulation in Section 138 of the Act. 15. As regards the other contention namely, absence of liability of the petitioner due to loss or theft of the cheques, those are essentially matters of fact relating to his defense; being disputed questions, they do not qualify as grounds calling for interference under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 16. In view of the above conclusions, no reliefs can be granted in these proceedings. The Petition is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 823 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... service since 3.8.1997 as Extension Officer in Rural Development and later on promoted as Mandal Parishad Development Officer at the time when he was appointed on compassionate ground. These facts clearly disclose that the appointment on compassionate ground was secured by playing fraud. Fraud clocks everything. In such admitted facts, there was no necessity of issuing show cause notice to him. The view of the High Court that termination suffers from the non-observance of the principles of natural justice is, therefore, clearly erroneous. In our view, in the given facts of this case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the respondent. The respondent could not have improved his case even if a show cause notice was issued to him. In the result, the order of the Division bench of the High Court dated 23.8.2005, is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is restored and writ petition of the respondent stands dismissed. No costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 822 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ramanyan, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 821 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Subhash Pande and Shri Kashyap Thakore and these statements were although recorded at the back of the assessee. When the assessee has asked for their cross-examination, the cross-examination of Shri Subhash Pande was not given to the assessee, although the statement of the assessee was recorded in consequence of the statement of Shri Subhash Pande recorded on 1-1-1996 under Section 131. The statements of Shri Suresh A. Patel and Shri Kashyap Thakore nowhere state the name of the assessee. Thus the revenue has not brought any evidence. The onus, in our opinion, is on the revenue to prove that the assessee has earned the income. It gets shifted on the assessee once the assessee claims the exemption of income. We therefore do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the additions made by the assessing officer. We therefore confirm the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment years 1991-92,1992-93,1993-94 and 1996-97.
-
2007 (3) TMI 820 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... second exercise was not justified as the only issue before the Division Bench was the question of limitation. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench to the extent that it goes on to the merits of the controversy but maintain it in so far that it deals with the question of limitation. Ipso facto the matters are restored to a re-hearing on merits. We accordingly remand the applications to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision with a request that in the background of the long pending litigation, the applications should, if possible, be taken up on a priority basis uninfluenced by any observations by the Division Bench of the High Court in the order dated 27.4.2004 or of this Court in these proceedings. We also observe that as we have dealt only with the question of limitation, it would be open to all the parties to the litigation, whether before us today or not, to raise all other pleas open to them in law. 6. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
-
2007 (3) TMI 819 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking grant for Enlargement Of bail - Offences punishable u/s 120B r/w Section 489-A to 489-E of IPC - violations of the Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 - Petitioner/accused is a Nigerian national - contented that he was produced before the magistrate beyond the mandatory period of 24 hours of his arrest - further contended that the Respondent has even after the expiry of 90 days failed to file charge sheet in respect of the alleged offence for which he was arrested - HELD THAT:- It is well known that the court takes cognizance of the crime, not the offender. The argument that the respondent filed a charge-sheet, within time, when it did, is not correct. The charge-sheet pertains only to the offence under the Foreigners Act, for which, as per proviso to Section 167(2) had to be filed within 60 days. But for the other offences, in respect of which the period prescribed, for filing the charge sheet is 90 days, no charges were indicated. Though the right of the investigating agency to file a supplementary charge sheet, or a further report (u/s 173(8) pursuant to order of the court) cannot be disputed, yet the fact remains that there cannot be part charge sheet, as has been contended in the present case.
Therefore, following the decision in S.M.Purtado's case [1996 (5) TMI 442 - KERALA HIGH COURT], as well as the Supreme Court ruling in Uday Mohanlal Acharya [2001 (3) TMI 1032 - SUPREME COURT], it has to be concluded that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. This is without prejudice to such other rights the respondents may have in law, to place further materials in support of the case, before the trial Court.
The petition is allowed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 818 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of the PIL - Misappropriation of public funds - Corruption in U.P. Administration - misused power and authority - writ petition filed by a Political opponent - forged documents to project the petitioner as a sponsored person of Congress - Seeking enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The prayer to take appropriate action to prosecute respondent Nos. 2-5 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for acquiring assets more than the known source of their income, in our opinion, cannot at all be countenanced straightaway. The Income-tax Department is concerned only with the source of income and whether the tax was paid or not, therefore, only an independent agency or the CBI could, on Court direction, determine the question of disproportionate assets. We, therefore, direct the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of all the respondents and after scrutinizing if a case is made out then to take further action in the matter.
The ultimate test, in our view, therefore, is whether the allegations have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent of a person with political difference raises an allegation of commission of offence. Therefore, we mould the prayer in the writ petition and direct the CBI to enquire into alleged acquisition of wealth by respondent Nos. 2-5 and find out as to whether the allegations made by the petitioner in regard to disproportionate assets to the known source of income of respondent Nos. 2-5 is correct or not and submit a report to the Union of India and on receipt of such report, the Union of India may take further steps depending upon the outcome of the preliminary enquiry into the assets of respondent Nos. 2.
In the instant case, it needs to be noted that we are concerned in this case not with the merits of the allegations. The present petition is filed on acquisition of alleged wealth. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioner's interest. In our view, it is wrong in law for the Court to judge the petitioner's interest without looking into the subject matter of his complaint and if the petitioner shows failure of public duty, the Court would be in error in dismissing the PIL.
It is also equally true that PIL is not maintainable to probe or enquire into the returns or another taxpayer except in special circumstances. However, when scams take place, allegation of disproportionate assets are required to be looked into. In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (Taj Trapezium Matter) [2004 (3) TMI 817 - SUPREME COURT], the Division Bench of this Court not only directed CBI to investigate the cases against the bureaucrats but also to enquire the outflow of ₹ 17 crores released by the State of U.P. in respect of project undertaken by NPCC. In that matter, the income tax returns of the former Chief Minister and other officials were ordered to be collected by this Court. They were directed to be collected from various income tax authorities. The point to be noted is that the source of the funds plays a crucial role in investigations by CBI in matters involving misappropriation of public funds.
We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the rival claims made by the respective parties under the documents, annexures and other papers filed in these proceedings. The Registry is directed to send in sealed cover the documents marked as 'A' to 'H' and all the copies of the sale deeds and other statements etc. filed by the parties to the CBI. The CBI may take the assistance of Chartered Accountants, Engineers and certified valuers for evaluation of the properties and proceed with the investigation and enquiry in the matter with an open mind.
Thsu, the writ petition is ordered accordingly.
-
2007 (3) TMI 817 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is challenged it is not necessary to implead all persons who are likely to be affected as party. It is not possible to identify who are likely to be affected and secondly, the question of validity of the rule is a matter which is decided on merit and ultimately, if the rule is held to be valid or invalid, the consequence automatically flows. Therefore, the original application filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal or for that matter before the High Court does not suffer from the vice of non-joinder of necessary party. 25. Since we have already held the rule to be valid, therefore, there is no question of setting aside the promotions which have already been made. Hence, as a result of our above discussion, we find that the judgment and order of the High Court cannot be sustained and consequently the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh are set aside. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been denied even by the High Court now needs to be examined. In this connection, reference must be made to Chander Sen's case (supra ) wherein it has been held that a son who inherits his father's assets under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act does so in his individual capacity and not as a Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. It is the admitted case before us that the 11 marlas had been purchased by Dula Singh from his income as an employee of the Railways and it was therefore his self- acquired property. Such a property falling to his sons by succession could not be said to be the property of the Joint Hindu Family. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal filed by Kulwant Singh must also be allowed and we accordingly so order. The suit filed by Kulwant Singh is accordingly decreed in toto. Civil Appeal No. 4455/2005 (Kulwant Singh v. Makhan Singh ) is allowed and the Civil Appeal No. 4446/2005 ( Makhan Singh (D) by LRs. v. Kulwant Singh ) is dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 815 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 11(4A), the demand was raised on the assessee. However, the subsequent declaration of law and the cancelling of the orders of assessment merit to be considered on the question of bona fides while considering the plea for waiver. It is not denied that the fresh order of assessment itself came to be passed after the Supreme Court decision. In the light of the above facts and considering the scope of the Board's notification, the case of the petitioner merits to be reconsidered and a fresh order passed accordingly. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the first respondent and direct the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. 13. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, but with a direction as stated above, remanding the matter back to the first respondent to pass orders in accordance with law and in terms of the Board's circular cited above. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 814 - CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... t with properly, under the law, even penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not stand. 3. Heard both sides and it is found that proposition of law submitted by the ld. Authorised Representative throws light on the quantum of penalty leviable. Therefore, considering that gravity of the offence not being so rigorous, imposition of penalty of ₹ 1146/- and ₹ 3,000/- was even hardship. When there was no compelling reason to levy penalty by the Appellate Authorities below, reduction is not considerable as mercy and an authority shall only act in accordance with law. There is no reason brought out in record even to impose a token penalty for the technical breach and there is no finding on intention of the assessee to evade tax or make a knowable breach of law. Keeping the token amount of penalty in view, Cross Objection is allowed and there shall be no penalty on the Respondents. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
........
|
