|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 691 Records
-
2008 (5) TMI 755 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bmission that the fee had the trappings of a capitation fee. We find no merit in this assertion, as the fee is being levied year wise for the course. We have also gone through the judgments cited by Mr. Iyer. To our mind, they are not applicable to the facts of this case. 13. Mr. Rao has finally submitted that as the fee for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 had been fixed by a committee set up under the directions of the Supreme Court it was not open to the Syndicate to suggest a higher fee thereafter. We find, however, that there seems to be a misconception as to the facts as it is the specific case of the University that the fee had been fixed by the Syndicate under Section 18 of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1976 and not by any committee. 14. We therefore, find that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained. We accordingly set it aside and allow the appeals with no order as to costs. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
2008 (5) TMI 754 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n Reddy, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (5) TMI 753 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rgah are not matters which should be allowed to be given a decent burial. The Government should have taken the purport of its orders and memos issued by it to their logical conclusion. They failed to do so. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Government of Andhra Pradesh would be well advised to cause an enquiry to be made into the entire affairs of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board and others concerned vis- -vis the transactions carried out in the matter, albeit after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. We expect that the Government of Andhra Pradesh would initiate appropriate proceedings and take such action or actions against all concerned including its own officers as also those of the Board and Dargah as also the allottees in the event they are found guilty. 45. In view of the findings aforementioned, it is not necessary to pass any separate orders on the IAs for impleadment filed by the allottees. 46. Appeals are, thus, allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 752 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted 28.11.2005 recorded by the Trial Court and hearing the rival claimants. (ii) After such determination, the person/s determined to be the person/s entitled to represent the estate of the deceased shall be brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased. (iii) Thereafter, the appeal shall be heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with law. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal, preferably within a period of six months. Nothing stated above shall be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the matter. We also make it clear that the determination as to representation of the estate of the deceased, by the High Court, will be only for the purposes of the appeal before the High Court and will not in any way affect the rights of claimants to the estate of the deceased or the adjudication of any dispute among them in any independent proceedings. Parties to bear the respective costs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 751 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... #39; of certain properties during the minority of a ward would not operate as bar to a suit for possession by a person claiming to be trustee. 42. The question came up for consideration in Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram and Anr. XXVII (1899-1900) Indian Appeals 69 wherein the judicial committee held as under Their Lordships are of opinion that there is no distinction between the office and the property of the endowment. 43. The said principle was applied in a case of Debendra Nath Mitra Majumdar v. Sheik Safatulla AIR 1927 Cal 130, stating That the right of the plaintiff to hold the properties of the wakf is a right appurtenant to his office as the Mutwalli cannot be disputed Gnanasambandha Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandara (1899) 23 Mad. 271. 44. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thout any basis and directing the tenant to pay absurdly high rent would be considered oppressive and unreasonable even when such direction is issued as a condition for stay of eviction. High Court should desist from doing so. 9. To sum up, in writ petitions by landlord against rejection of eviction petitions, there is no scope for issue of any interim direction to the tenant to pay higher rent. But in writ petitions by tenants against grant of eviction, the High Court may, as a condition of stay, direct the tenant to pay higher rent during the pendency of the writ petition. This again is subject to two limitations. First, the condition should be reasonable. Second, there should not be any bar in the respective State rent control legislation in regard to such increase in rent. Be that as it may. 10. The appeal is allowed and the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the High Court directing the tenant to pay rent at the rate of Rs.12050/- per month from October, 2006 is set aside.
-
2008 (5) TMI 749 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Mohan Parasaran, ASG.; Mr. O.P. Srivastava, Adv. and Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2008 (5) TMI 748 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is essential that he is in a position to operate the said account by either depositing monies therein or by withdrawing money therefrom. He should be in a position to give effective instructions to his banker with whom the account is maintained. However, in the present case, once the account has been attached by an order of the Court, the said account could not be operated by the petitioner. He could not have issue any binding instructions to his banker, and the banker was not obliged to honour any of his instructions in relation to the said account, so long as the attachment under the court orders continued. 24. For all the aforesaid reasons, in my view, even if the contents of the complaint are accepted in toto, no offence under Section 138 of the Act can be said to have been committed against the accused, this petition deserves to succeed. I, therefore, allow the petition and quash the complaint filed by the respondent before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.
-
2008 (5) TMI 747 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y other substantial cause. If what the respondents contended is correct, namely, the mortgage was executed in 1913, the period of limitation having been prescribed under the old Limitation Act, namely, 60 years being the period of limitation having regard to the provisions of the new Limitation Act, the suit could be filed within a period of seven years from 1.1.1964, i.e. upto 1.1.1971. As the suit was filed on 30.12.1970, it may be held to be within the prescribed period of limitation. 12. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents should be permitted to adduce evidence. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter back to the High Court directing it to take the additional evidence on record either allowing the parties to adduce evidence before it or to prove the said documents by the trial judge in terms of Order 41 Rule 28 of the Code. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 746 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inding that the decree is liable to be reversed. No case has been made out for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code. An order of remand cannot be passed on ipse dixit of the court. The provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of civil Procedure as also Section 11 thereof could be invoked, provided of course the conditions precedent therefore were satisfied. We may not have to deal with the legal position obtaining in this behalf as the question has recently been dealt with by this Court in Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Mahant Ram Niwas and Anr. AIR2008SC2187 disposed of on 12.5.2008. 21. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the matter is remanded back to the High Court for consideration of the appeal on merits. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 745 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... falls outside the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. 40. We must guard against construction of a statute which would confer such a wide power in the Permanent Lok Adalat having regard to sub-section (8) of Section 22-Cof the Act. The Permanent Lok Adalat must at the outset formulate the questions. We however, do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that Permanent Lok Adalat would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction to entertain such cases but emphasise that it must exercise its power with due care and caution. It must not give an impression to any of the disputants that it from the very beginning has an adjudicatory role to play in relation to its jurisdiction without going into the statutory provisions and restrictions imposed thereunder. 41. For the reasons abovementioned the order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 744 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assed an order, an appeal could have been preferred thereagainst. If the entire Board is the appropriate authority for taking a decision, it is only that authority which was required to take decision and not any other. (See Indian Airlines Ltd. vs. Prabha D, Kanan (2006) 11 SC 67). 20. For the said purpose an express provision in the Regulation was not imperative. Managing Director of the Corporation initiated a proceeding but he could not impose a major penalty and in that view of the matter he will have the incidental power to place the findings of the Enquiry Officer before the Board. Such an incidental power must be held to be existing with all the statutory authorities. Absence of any Rule as is obtaining in Rule 13 of the CCS (CCA) Rules would not, in our opinion, vitiate the proceeding. 21. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 743 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... applying the law to the questions posed before the Court, the Court in its humble opinion takes the view that the applicants - auction purchasers and the Official Liquidator are right in their perception that the auction purchasers are not liable to discharge any of the liabilities pertaining to the pre-liquidation period of the Company in liquidation and all these attachments which are made on the assets of the Company in liquidation are required to be removed and the auction purchasers are entitled to get absolutely clear and marketable title, free from all encumbrances of the pre-liquidation period of the Company in liquidation. The concerned Revenue authorities as well as the Sales Tax authorities are, therefore, directed to remove the attachments, if any, on account of the dues pertaining to the pre-liquidation period of the Company in liquidation. 38. All these Company Applications and the report of the Official Liquidator are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
-
2008 (5) TMI 742 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. The parties have compromised and the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat categorically submitted that she does not want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, deem it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from the FIR lodged under Section 498A IPC. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-
2008 (5) TMI 741 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch judgments. 31. As the reference was made only for the purpose of resolving the perceived conflict between the said two judgments, it is not necessary to venture into the uncharted territory of what the law may be, and how the relevant limb of clause 12 of the Letters Patent would come to be construed, with the proliferation of at- par cheques encashable at every branch of the bank or upon appreciation of the increasing banking transactions on the internet which makes indistinct the traditional banking practice of yore. 32. The reference is disposed of by holding that there is no conflict between the judgments rendered in the Steel Authority and the Oriental Bank cases and with the observation that the applicability as precedent of the law recognised in the one or the other would depend on the facts obtaining in a particular context. Urgent certified photostat copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2008 (5) TMI 740 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee, to show the comparable figures of wastage percentage, rendered in the manufacturing process of other industries, involved in manufacturing identical product, and employing identical process of manufacturing, and to satisfy the learned CIT(A), about the wastage percentage, shown by the assessee, during the past assessment years, and that having been accepted by the Revenue, and then to consider the impact of the above, if established by the assessee, on the question, as to whether the books of account of the assessee, are required to be rejected or not. 8. Accordingly, the question, as framed, is answered in negative, in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue. The impugned orders of the learned Tribunal, and the learned CIT(A), are set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the learned CIT(A), as above, for deciding the matter afresh. Parties shall appear before the CIT(A) on 28th July, 2008. Parties shall appears before the CIT(A) on 28th July, 2008.
-
2008 (5) TMI 739 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... o delete the same. 61. With regard to painting and craft work income shown in the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the ld. CIT(A) has doubted the impugned income shown, however, he has stated that the assessee is having some source of income. From the observation of CIT(A) it was found that these loose papers were owned by Uma Shankar Pateria and his affidavit was not rebutted by the ld. Assessing Officer even after recording the statement which is evident from its statement itself. 62. As discussed hereinabove, the income from art and craft work was wrongly declined by the ld. CIT(A). The lower authorities were not justified in making the addition of cash so explained out of art of craft work. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 2,57,760/- made by the ld. CIT(A). In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2013.
-
2008 (5) TMI 738 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oresaid, we are of the view that this writ petition is covered by the decisions of this Court in the case of D.S. Reddy and L.P. Agarwal and the impugned proviso to Section 11A of the AIIMS Act is, therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, we hold that the proviso is ultra vires and unconstitutional and accordingly it is struck down. The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is allowed. In view of our order passed in the writ petition, the writ petitioner shall serve the nation for some more period, i.e., upto 2nd of July, 2008. We direct the AIIMS Authorities to restore the writ petitioner in his office as Director of AIIMS till his period comes to an end on 2nd of July, 2008. The writ petitioner is also entitled to his pay and other emoluments as he was getting before premature termination of his office from the date of his order of termination. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 737 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mpleted within a period of four weeks from date. 22. In the event, the cooperative society intending to avail loan facilities from the banks for running their business, may approach them which may apart from usual conditions release the same on a further condition that the amount of FDR would remain with them and on that basis, loans may be granted of such amount. The usual precautions in regard thereto may also be taken by the Bank(s). 23. We, while saying so, do not intend to lay down any law. These directions should not be treated to be precedent. We are issuing these directions keeping in view that the factual scenario obtaining in the case and that non-release of the amount is likely to enure hardships that may be faced by the cooperative societies. We would also direct the criminal court to dispose of the criminal cases pending before them with utmost expedition. These appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 736 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... usions and in exercise of the powers under Sections 397 and 398 read with Section 402, it is hereby directed that the petitioner group will exit by sale of its entire holding in the Company, namely, 70.42% (petitioner 69.30% IP Support 1.12%) to the second respondent group at a fair value which shall be certified by an independent and reputed firm of Chartered Accountants. Towards this end, the contesting parties will appear before the Bench on 09.07.2008 at 2.30 PM to suggest a mutually acceptable Valuer for valuation of shares of the Company. The parties, if for any reasons, do not agree on a common Valuer, this Bench will appoint an independent Valuer and issue appropriate consequential directions in this behalf, which shall include the disputed civil claims, in the absence of any consensus in terms of this order, between the parties. Ordered accordingly. With these directions the company petition and the connected company application are disposed of. No order as to costs.
........
|
