|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 203 Records
-
1992 (4) TMI 266
Issues Involved:
1. Authorization to institute the suit.
2. Nature of the payment made by the plaintiff to the defendant.
3. Entitlement to refund post-judgment by the Supreme Court.
4. Liability for interest and litigation expenses.
5. Limitation period for the suit and claims.
6. Entitlement to costs and interest.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Authorization to Institute the Suit:
The court examined whether the suit was properly instituted by an authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff. The testimony of Shri Narinder K. Bhatnagar, supported by the Memorandum Article of Association and the Board's Resolution, confirmed his authority to sign, verify, and institute the suit. There was no cross-examination or rebuttal against this evidence, leading to a decision in favor of the plaintiff.
2. Nature of the Payment Made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant:
The plaintiff claimed that the sums paid to the defendant were deposits made in trust, with the understanding that they would be refunded if the tax imposition was quashed. The defendant acknowledged the conditions set by the plaintiff regarding the reimbursement of sales tax and penalties, which were confirmed through various letters exchanged between the parties. The court found that the defendant acted as an agent of the plaintiff and was compelled to pay the sales tax under legal compulsion, thus supporting the plaintiff's claim that the payment was made in trust.
3. Entitlement to Refund Post-Judgment by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's decision that the supply of gunny bags did not amount to a sale, thus no sales tax was leviable. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the amount paid to the defendant, as the defendant was acting on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant's role was limited to supplying cement under the Cement Control Order, and the plaintiff was deemed the principal liable for the sales tax, which was ultimately quashed.
4. Liability for Interest and Litigation Expenses:
The court considered whether the defendant was entitled to interest and litigation expenses incurred while contesting the sales tax liability. It was determined that the defendant, acting under legal compulsion, was entitled to reimbursement for interest and litigation expenses as per Sections 69 and 70 of the Contract Act. The defendant was deemed a person interested in making the payment to avoid prosecution, and thus entitled to compensation for the expenses incurred.
5. Limitation Period for the Suit and Claims:
The court addressed the issue of whether the suit was barred by time. It was found that the defendant had been consistently claiming reimbursement and interest since the receipt of the show cause notice, supported by documentary evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was within the limitation period, as the defendant's acknowledgment of liability extended the period of limitation.
6. Entitlement to Costs and Interest:
The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the amount due after adjusting for interest and litigation expenses incurred by the defendant. The plaintiff was awarded interest at the rate of 12 percent from the date of the Supreme Court judgment. Additionally, the plaintiff was entitled to proportionate costs on the amount due from the defendant.
Conclusion:
The court decreed that the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of Rs. 2,08,985.43 with interest at the rate of 12 percent from November 22, 1972, until realization, along with proportionate costs. The defendant was entitled to adjust the interest and litigation expenses incurred from the total amount initially paid by the plaintiff.
-
1992 (4) TMI 265
Issues Involved:
1. Fraud in the conduct of the auction.
2. Illegality and material irregularity in the holding of the auction.
3. Bar of the present suit due to a previously instituted suit.
4. Gross inadequacy of the sale price and its impact on the validity of the sale.
5. Appropriate reliefs and costs.
Summary:
Issue 1: Fraud in the Conduct of the Auction
The plaintiff proved that the defendants committed fraud during the auction held on 6-7-1974. The auction was described as a "stage-managed farce" to enable defendant No. 2 to acquire the property for a pittance. The plaintiff's representative was prevented from participating, and the auction lacked transparency, with no bids being invited. The sale proclamation falsely described parts of the property and omitted crucial details, leading to a fraudulent sale.
Issue 2: Illegality and Material Irregularity in the Holding of the Auction
The plaintiff demonstrated that the auction was marred by material irregularities and illegalities. The sale proclamation lacked the estimated value of the property and the reserve price, which are essential for attracting potential buyers. Additionally, the exact amount of property tax due was not specified, and the rental income was not mentioned, further deterring potential bidders. These omissions constituted significant irregularities affecting the auction's fairness.
Issue 3: Bar of the Present Suit Due to a Previously Instituted Suit
The present suit was not barred by the previously instituted Suit No. 4643 of 1974. The earlier suit, which was not pursued after the plaintiff failed to comply with a condition for an interim injunction, challenged the right to auction before it took place. In contrast, the current suit sought to declare void the result of the auction held on 6-7-1974. The different causes of action in the two suits negated the defense contention of non-maintainability.
Issue 4: Gross Inadequacy of the Sale Price and Its Impact on the Validity of the Sale
The property was sold at a grossly inadequate price of Rs. 61,000/-, significantly lower than its estimated value of Rs. 2,84,321/-. The inadequacy of the price itself was evidence of fraud, as the sale fetched only about 25% of the property's real value. The low price, coupled with the irregularities in the sale proclamation, indicated collusion between the defendants, rendering the sale invalid.
Issue 5: Appropriate Reliefs and Costs
The court declared the auction sale held on 6-7-1974 void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants were permanently enjoined from taking further steps to complete the sale. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs due to the complexity of the issues involved.
Order:
Declared that the auction sale of the suit property held on 6-7-1974 by M/s. Gandhi & Co., Auctioneers under the instructions of defendant No. 1, is void and not binding upon the plaintiff. Defendants are hereby permanently injuncted against taking any further steps to complete the aforementioned sale. Costs in suit to be borne as incurred.
-
1992 (4) TMI 264
Issues involved:
The issue involves the termination of the petitioner's service as a police constable in 1967, similar to other constables who were dismissed and later reinstated through litigation. The main question is whether the delay of twenty-two years in filing for reinstatement after termination in 1967 should be considered reasonable.
Issue 1:
The petitioner, a constable in the Delhi Armed Police, had his service terminated in 1967 due to participation in an agitation. Many dismissed constables were reinstated through litigation, and the petitioner filed for reinstatement in 1989, claiming similarity to those reinstated earlier. The Tribunal rejected the application citing an inordinate delay of twenty-two years.
Details:
The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application due to the significant delay of twenty-two years in filing for reinstatement after termination in 1967. The petitioner argued that he should be reinstated like others, and the delay should not be a factor. However, the Tribunal found the delay unexplained and refused relief based on this ground.
Issue 2:
The key question is whether the delay in filing for reinstatement after twenty-two years, despite similarities with other reinstated constables, should be disregarded. The petitioner claimed discrimination by the Delhi Administration for not reinstating him along with others.
Details:
The Court analyzed whether the delay of twenty-two years in claiming reinstatement, despite knowing about others' successful reinstatements, should be overlooked. The petitioner's argument of discrimination was countered by the Court, emphasizing the importance of timely claims in service matters to maintain administrative stability and fairness among employees.
Issue 3:
The Court deliberated on the impact of unexplained delay in filing for reinstatement on the petitioner's claim. It examined the equitable principles of Article 14 and non-discrimination in service matters, highlighting the significance of timely claims to avoid disruption in the administrative setup.
Details:
The Court emphasized that unexplained delays in claiming relief can affect administrative stability and fairness among employees. It noted that the petitioner's delay of twenty-two years without a satisfactory explanation undermined his claim for reinstatement and could disrupt the administrative setup. The Court concluded that granting relief to the petitioner after such a prolonged delay would be inequitable and refused the relief claimed under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges.
-
1992 (4) TMI 263
Issues:
Bail application for accused in a murder case under Sections 302/201, IPC - Consideration of factors for granting bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. - Application of proviso to Section 437(1), Cr.P.C. for an elderly accused - Role of evidence and witnesses in determining bail eligibility.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a bail application by the accused in a murder case under Sections 302/201, IPC. The prosecution alleged that the victim was beaten, locked in a room, and subsequently burnt to destroy evidence. The accused, an elderly woman, argued lack of specific role attribution and delay in reporting. The court noted positive evidence against the accused and family members, absconding behavior, and circumstantial evidence supporting a prima facie case.
2. The court emphasized that bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. is not a blanket power and must be judicially exercised. Factors like the nature of the offense, accused's status, fleeing likelihood, and societal impact are crucial. The court highlighted that bail is a procedural privilege, not a right, and public justice interests must be safeguarded, especially in heinous offenses affecting society.
3. The judgment clarified that the first information report need not be filed by an eyewitness only. In cases like the present, where family bitterness is involved, witnesses may remain silent due to fear or relationship with the accused. The absence of reporting by the accused or family members was also noted as a relevant factor in assessing bail eligibility.
4. The court referenced legal precedents to emphasize that bail decisions should be based on prima facie evidence without exhaustive exploration of merits. The Supreme Court's stance on bail criteria, evidence scrutiny, and societal impact guided the court's decision-making process in denying bail to the accused based on the gravity of the offense and societal implications.
5. Regarding the proviso to Section 437(1), Cr.P.C., the court rejected the elderly accused's plea for bail, emphasizing discretionary nature and need for special circumstances. The court held that the accused's relationship with the victim and the offense's severity did not warrant bail under the proviso, aligning with the rule of prudence and precedent limitations.
6. Ultimately, considering the offense's gravity, manner of commission, and societal impact, the court denied the bail application, concluding that the accused did not merit release. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing personal liberty with public justice interests and the need to assess each case's unique circumstances for bail decisions.
-
1992 (4) TMI 262
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "posts" in the context of seniority.
2. Whether the benefit of continuous officiation towards seniority includes ex-cadre posts.
3. Adherence to the Supreme Court's directives in Narender Chadha's case.
4. Tribunal's interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's judgment.
5. Equity and discrimination in seniority determination.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of the term "posts" in the context of seniority:
The Supreme Court had to determine whether the term "posts" used in its previous judgment in Narender Chadha's case referred exclusively to "cadre posts" or if it also included "ex-cadre posts." The Court clarified that its directions were "crystal-clear" and did not distinguish between cadre and ex-cadre posts. The Court emphasized that promotees should be treated as regular members of Grade IV from the day they continuously held posts in the said Service, regardless of whether these were cadre or ex-cadre posts.
2. Whether the benefit of continuous officiation towards seniority includes ex-cadre posts:
The Court reiterated that promotees are entitled to count their entire period of service in Grade IV posts towards seniority, whether these were cadre or ex-cadre posts. The Court noted that promotees had been performing duties and drawing salaries for over fifteen years and found it arbitrary to treat them as ad hoc. The Court's intention was to provide the benefit of continuous officiation to promotees irrespective of the nature of the posts they held.
3. Adherence to the Supreme Court's directives in Narender Chadha's case:
The Court reviewed its previous judgment in Narender Chadha's case, which had directed the Union Government to treat promotees as regularly appointed to Grade IV and assign them seniority from the date of continuous officiation. The Court noted that the promotees had been manning posts meant for direct recruits for over fifteen years and that the Departmental Promotion Committee had not met regularly. The Court found that the promotees should be given the benefit of their entire period of service towards seniority.
4. Tribunal's interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's judgment:
The Tribunal had interpreted the Supreme Court's judgment to mean that only promotees officiating against cadre posts were entitled to seniority benefits. The Supreme Court found this interpretation to be a "patent error" and "wholly perverse." The Court emphasized that its previous judgment did not distinguish between cadre and ex-cadre posts and that the Tribunal's reasoning was illogical and unjustified.
5. Equity and discrimination in seniority determination:
The Court highlighted that denying promotees the benefit of their ad hoc service would result in significant prejudice and discrimination. The Court noted that promotees had been performing the same duties and receiving the same salaries as regularly appointed officers and found it unjust to deprive them of seniority benefits. The Court emphasized that any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and dismissed the applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal. The Court reiterated that promotees are entitled to count their entire period of service in Grade IV posts towards seniority, regardless of whether these were cadre or ex-cadre posts. The Court emphasized the importance of equity and non-discrimination in seniority determination and found the Tribunal's interpretation to be erroneous and unjust.
-
1992 (4) TMI 261
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in light of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
3. Existence and validity of the arbitration agreement between the parties.
4. Balance of convenience and jurisdiction of a foreign court or tribunal.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The appeal's maintainability was questioned based on Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which restricts appeals to specific orders. The court noted that Clause 15 of the Letters Patent allows appeals to the High Court from judgments of a single judge. The court referenced Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, which clarified that certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to Letters Patent Appeals, but the bar in Section 104 of the CPC does not inhibit the appellate jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The court also considered the Full Bench decision in Mary Thomas v. Dr. K.E. Thomas, which upheld the Letters Patent jurisdiction despite the creation of exclusive Family Courts. The Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Mahindra Supply Co. was also considered, which held that the Arbitration Act must be construed without assuming it did not intend to alter the law relating to appeals. The court concluded that the appeal should be referred to a Full Bench to determine whether Section 39(1) restricts the court's power under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The original civil jurisdiction of the High Court was preserved under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, allowing the court to try suits of every description within its local limits. The court noted that the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is entertained as a suit, and the judgment passed therein attracts appellate jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The court discussed the historical context of arbitration proceedings and the consolidation of arbitration laws under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The court also referenced various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co., which clarified that the right to appeal under the Letters Patent is restricted by Section 39 of the Arbitration Act.
3. Existence and Validity of the Arbitration Agreement:
The court considered the petition filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, seeking a declaration that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The single judge dismissed the petition, finding that the correspondence between the parties established the terms of the contract, including the arbitration clause. The court noted that the Arbitration Act does not require the arbitration agreement to be signed by the parties, as long as the terms are reduced to writing and the agreement is established. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Jugal Kishore v. Goolbai and Banarsi Das v. Cane Commissioner, U.P., which held that an arbitration agreement in writing does not need to be signed by the parties.
4. Balance of Convenience and Jurisdiction of Foreign Court or Tribunal:
The court considered the Indian Company's contention that it would face hardship and inconvenience if the arbitration were conducted in a foreign country. The court referenced various judgments, including Black Sea State Steamship Line v. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. and Far East Steamship Line v. Union of India, which held that the enforcement of foreign jurisdiction clauses depends on the balance of convenience and the ends of justice. The court noted that the discretion to enforce such clauses should be exercised judicially, considering factors such as the location of evidence, the proper law governing the contract, and the connection of the parties to the foreign jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the single judge failed to consider the provisions of Section 33 of the Arbitration Act properly and did not provide adequate opportunity for the parties to present evidence. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the single judge's order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the parties to adduce evidence and considering the principles evolved by various judicial pronouncements. The court also rejected an oral prayer for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, finding no question of law or public importance that had not already been decided by the Supreme Court.
-
1992 (4) TMI 260
Issues:
1. Liability of guarantors in case of default by the principal debtor.
2. Whether the creditor can proceed against the guarantor without exhausting remedies against the principal debtor.
3. Interpretation of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act in relation to the liability of sureties.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the liability of guarantors when the principal debtor defaults on a loan. The petitioners had guaranteed a loan for the purchase of a bus, which was later transferred to another party who defaulted on repayment. The Corporation sought to recover the outstanding amount from the petitioners after failing to seize the bus due to tax-related issues. The main contention was whether the Corporation could proceed against the guarantors without first exhausting remedies against the principal debtor.
The Court examined the extent of liability of guarantors in such cases. Reference was made to various legal precedents, including the Union Bank of India v. Manku case, which emphasized the creditor's right to proceed against the guarantor after taking action against the mortgaged property and principal debtor. The Court differentiated this case from the Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad case, highlighting the importance of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act.
The judgment discussed the interpretation of Section 128, which states that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless specified otherwise in the contract. Legal precedents from different High Courts were cited to support the notion that a creditor can proceed against the surety without exhausting remedies against the principal debtor. The judgment emphasized that the obligation of a guarantee arises immediately upon execution, and the creditor is not bound to sue the debtor first.
Additionally, the judgment examined the specific terms of the guarantee deeds executed by the petitioners. It was found that the deeds did not exempt the contracts from the operation of Section 128 of the Contract Act, reinforcing the immediate liability of the guarantors. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed based on the established legal principles and contractual terms.
The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing the liability of guarantors and the creditor's rights in cases of default by the principal debtor. It underscored the immediate liability of sureties and the creditor's ability to proceed against them without exhausting remedies against the principal debtor, unless specified otherwise in the contract. The decision was based on a thorough examination of relevant legal precedents and statutory provisions, highlighting the importance of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act in determining the extent of a surety's liability.
-
1992 (4) TMI 259
Issues:
Appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding a disciplinary action against a Head Constable (Driver) of Delhi Police.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background and Appeal:
The case involves an appeal filed by the Union of India against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The original disciplinary action was taken against Khazan Singh, a Head Constable (Driver) of Delhi Police, who was initially awarded the punishment of censure by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The Additional Commissioner of Police set aside the censure and directed a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 25 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980. Khazan Singh then appealed to the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the order of the Appellate Authority, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
2. Show-Cause Notice and Penalty:
Khazan Singh was issued a show-cause notice for alleged grave carelessness and negligence in leaving an Inspector without a vehicle while on VIP duty. Despite his unsatisfactory reply, a penalty of censure was imposed on him. The appellate authority, as per Rule 25 of the Rules, had the power to confirm, set aside, reduce, or enhance the punishment, or remit the case for further inquiry. In this case, the Appellate Authority set aside the censure and ordered a regular departmental inquiry to be conducted.
3. Central Administrative Tribunal's Decision:
The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, citing a contravention of Rule 25(1)(d) by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal argued that the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by directing a fresh inquiry for a major penalty, which was not explicitly provided for in the Rules. The Tribunal held that the order of the Appellate Authority had to be set aside due to this jurisdictional error.
4. Supreme Court's Ruling:
The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, analyzed the powers of the Appellate Authority under Rule 25(1)(e) and (f) of the Rules. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority had wide powers to remit the case for further inquiry and pass suitable orders. Despite the lack of specific mention of the rule under which the appeal was disposed of, the Court held that the Appellate Authority validly exercised its powers under the relevant Rules. The Court disagreed with the respondent's argument that Rule 23(1)(e) was not applicable due to the absence of a prior departmental inquiry, emphasizing the broad discretionary powers of the Appellate Authority to ensure justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and reinstated the order of the Appellate Authority without imposing any costs.
This detailed analysis outlines the progression of the case, the key legal provisions invoked, the decisions of the lower tribunals, and the final ruling of the Supreme Court, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved in the judgment.
-
1992 (4) TMI 258
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit properties are joint family properties of Purandas and his four sons.
2. Whether there was a settlement or partition as alleged by the defendants in the year 1942.
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
4. What are the properties available for partition.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether the suit properties are joint family properties of Purandas and his four sons.
The plaintiffs contended that the business was started by Purandas and developed by the joint efforts of Purandas and his sons, thus making the properties joint family properties. The defendants argued that the business was self-acquired by Purandas without any ancestral property nucleus, and merely working with the father does not make it joint family property. The court examined evidence, including testimonies from P.W.1, P.W.2, and D.W.1, and concluded that the business was indeed started by Purandas and developed with the joint efforts of the family. The court cited several precedents, including Haridas v. Devkuvarbai and Lachmi Narain v. Musaddi Lal, which established that properties acquired by joint family efforts are joint family properties. Thus, the court held that the properties are joint family properties amenable for partition.
Issue 2: Whether there was a settlement or partition as alleged by the defendants in the year 1942.
The plaintiffs denied any partition or settlement, while the defendants claimed a settlement in 1942, formalized in a 1957 settlement deed. The court scrutinized the evidence, including Ex. B-3 (the settlement deed) and Ex. B-4 (a will), and found inconsistencies and contradictions in the defendants' claims. The court noted the absence of independent witnesses to corroborate the settlement deed and the lack of mention of the 1942 settlement in the defendants' initial reply notice. The court also found that the alleged settlement deed did not see the light of day until the written statement was filed. Consequently, the court held that there was no settlement or partition as alleged by the defendants.
Issue 3: Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
The defendants argued that the suit was time-barred, claiming that the business was carried on independently long before 1943. However, the court noted that there was no specific plea of exclusion of the plaintiffs from the joint family properties. The court cited the principle that exclusion must be to the knowledge of the person excluded and supported by sufficient material. The court also referenced the Privy Council's decision in Radhobav. Aburao, which emphasized the necessity of proving an intention to exclude. Since no issue of exclusion was raised before the trial court, and the plaintiffs were paid maintenance from the joint family business, the court held that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Issue 4: What are the properties available for partition.
The court examined the evidence regarding the properties listed in the plaint schedules. The defendants claimed that the properties were self-acquired, but the court found no supporting evidence, such as sale deeds or witness testimonies, to substantiate this claim. The court noted that the properties were purchased from the income of the joint family business and held that the properties covered by the plaint 'B' and 'C' schedules are joint family properties. However, the court found no evidence to prove the existence of properties in the plaint 'D' schedule and thus excluded them from partition.
Conclusion:
The court set aside the trial court's judgment and declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to one-fifth share, while the 9th defendant is entitled to one-fifth share in the one-fifth share of late Purandas in the joint family properties covered by the plaint 'B' and 'C' schedules. A preliminary decree for partition was ordered, and both appeals were allowed with costs.
-
1992 (4) TMI 257
Issues:
Delay in filing objections to the award before the Court.
Analysis:
The case involved an application for condonation of delay in filing objections to an award dated December 7, 1990, by the sole arbitrator. The respondent was required to file objections within 30 days of receiving notice, but they filed them after a delay of 20 days. The court emphasized strict construction of the Limitation Act and the need for a valid explanation for any delay. The applicant's affidavit did not provide a satisfactory reason for the delay, and a subsequent affidavit lacked credibility as it was not based on personal knowledge. The court found the explanations for the delay insufficient and rejected the application for condonation of delay.
The court highlighted that the reasons given for the delay in filing objections were not compelling. The applicant cited the busy schedule of an engineer as the cause of delay, but failed to explain the period after the engineer's reported completion of tasks till the actual filing date. The court reiterated the requirement for a detailed explanation for each day of delay. As the applicant failed to provide a valid reason for the delay, the objections were deemed time-barred and not accepted. The court concluded that the objections could not be taken on record and rejected the application accordingly.
The judgment also mentioned the timeline of events, including the arbitrator filing the award, issuance of notices to parties, and the subsequent filing of objections beyond the statutory period. Despite being served with notice within the stipulated time, the petitioner did not file objections. The respondent's objections were filed late and subsequently rejected. The court upheld the award dated December 7, 1990, and made it a rule of the court, passing a decree in favor of the petitioner with interest. The court did not award any costs in the matter.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, rejected the objections as time-barred, and upheld the award as a rule of the court, passing a decree in favor of the petitioner.
-
1992 (4) TMI 256
Issues Involved:
1. Commission of rape under Section 376 IPC.
2. Evaluation of evidence including extra-judicial confession and medical evidence.
3. Delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR).
4. Adequacy of the sentence imposed by the High Court under Section 354 IPC.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Commission of Rape Under Section 376 IPC:
The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found that the respondent had committed rape on the victim, an 8-year-old girl. The Court noted that the High Court had erroneously convicted the respondent under Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty) instead of Section 376 IPC (rape). The evidence, including the victim's testimony and the extra-judicial confession, clearly established that the respondent had partially penetrated the victim's vulva, which is sufficient to constitute rape under Section 375 IPC. The Court emphasized that even slight penetration is sufficient for a rape conviction, and complete penetration is not necessary.
2. Evaluation of Evidence Including Extra-Judicial Confession and Medical Evidence:
The Supreme Court found that the extra-judicial confession made by the respondent was voluntary and not obtained by coercion. The confession was corroborated by the victim's testimony and medical evidence. The medical officer's findings of abrasion and redness on the victim's labia majora and minora, along with the victim's detailed account of the incident, supported the prosecution's case. The Court rejected the trial court's findings that the evidence was tainted and the confession was fabricated.
3. Delay in Filing the First Information Report (FIR):
The Supreme Court addressed the delay in filing the FIR, noting that the victim's parents initially hesitated due to fear of the respondent's influential family and the potential impact on their daughter's future. The Court held that the delay was reasonably explained and did not weaken the prosecution's case. The High Court had also found no adverse inference from the delay in lodging the report.
4. Adequacy of the Sentence Imposed by the High Court Under Section 354 IPC:
The Supreme Court found the sentence of a fine of Rs. 3,000 imposed by the High Court to be grossly inadequate given the gravity of the offence. The Court noted that the High Court had shown misplaced sympathy towards the respondent and failed to impose a sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. The Supreme Court sentenced the respondent to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, with the fine amount to be paid to the victim.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment convicting the respondent under Section 354 IPC and instead convicted him under Section 376 IPC. The Court imposed a sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, emphasizing the need for severe punishment for such heinous crimes to serve as a deterrent and uphold justice. The Court also highlighted the alarming increase in sexual offences against children and the necessity for judges to impose stringent punishments in such cases.
-
1992 (4) TMI 255
Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of retraction of statement by co-accused.
2. Non-supply of legible documents to the detenu.
3. Non-supply of customs endorsements on certain bills of entry.
4. Discrepancy between grounds of detention and affidavit.
5. Delay in executing the detention order.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Non-consideration of Retraction of Statement by Co-accused:
Shri Madhu Patel argued that the retraction of the statement given by Harish Shah was not considered by the Detaining Authority. The court noted that Harish Shah's statement under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, did not contain any confession of involvement in a crime. The retraction letter asserted that the statement was taken under duress and that Harish Shah was not aware of Tushar Shah's activities. The court concluded that neither the statement nor the retraction could have significantly influenced the detention decision.
2. Non-supply of Legible Documents to the Detenu:
The petitioners contended that some documents were illegible. The court examined specific documents and found that translations were provided and legible. The court determined that the objections regarding legibility were not valid as the material portions were conveyed adequately. The court emphasized that the documents in question were subsidiary facts supporting the main basic fact about the transactions.
3. Non-supply of Customs Endorsements on Certain Bills of Entry:
The petitioners argued that four bills of entry did not contain customs endorsements. The court noted that transactions evidenced by these bills were separate and distinct violations. The court held that even if some grounds were invalid due to non-supply of documents, the detention order could still be sustained based on the remaining valid grounds, as per section 5-A of the COFEPOSA Act.
4. Discrepancy Between Grounds of Detention and Affidavit:
Shri Patel argued that the detention order mentioned conservation of foreign exchange, while the affidavit mentioned augmentation. The court found that augmentation and conservation of foreign exchange are related activities and that the discrepancy did not indicate non-application of mind. The court also noted that the affidavit by Roop Chand was to explain the delay, not to support the detention order.
5. Delay in Executing the Detention Order:
The petitioners contended that the delay in executing the detention order rendered the grounds stale. The court examined the timeline and found that efforts were made to arrest the detenu, who was not available at his premises. The court concluded that the delay was explained and reasonable, and that the grounds had not become stale.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions and confirmed the detention orders, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners.
-
1992 (4) TMI 254
Issues involved: Dissolution of marriage, bigamy complaint, abuse of court process, quashing of complaint under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Summary:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal regarding a bigamy complaint filed by the appellant against the first respondent, alleging that he married another person while his marriage with the appellant was subsisting. The High Court had quashed the complaint, citing contradictions and jurisdictional issues. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in analyzing the evidence and overlooked the principle for exercising inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. The respondent argued that the allegations were frivolous and actuated by oblique motive. The High Court's decision was based on misdirection in analyzing the truth of the allegations without legal proof.
The Supreme Court held that the complaint disclosed an offense under section 494 IPC, as the appellant and witnesses supported the claim of a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. The Court criticized the High Court's reliance on additional materials produced by the respondents, which were not admitted by the appellant. It was deemed unjustified to assume the complaint was false based on unproven materials. The Court concluded that the proceedings should continue against the first and second respondents, while other respondents were unnecessarily implicated. The complaint was to proceed only against respondents 1 and 2, setting aside the High Court's judgment.
Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the complaint against respondents 1 and 2 for further legal proceedings.
-
1992 (4) TMI 253
Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of trademark 'Disprin' by 'Medisprin'.
2. Passing off 'Medisprin' as 'Disprin'.
3. Deceptive similarity between 'Disprin' and 'Medisprin'.
4. Nature and usage of the products.
5. Class of people dealing with the products and mode of sale.
6. Common elements in trademarks and onus of proving extensive use.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Infringement of trademark 'Disprin' by 'Medisprin':
The plaintiffs, proprietors of the trademark 'Disprin', sought to restrain the defendants from using 'Medisprin', alleging it infringed their registered trademark. The plaintiffs argued that 'Medisprin' was visually, phonetically, and structurally similar to 'Disprin', thus infringing their trademark.
2. Passing off 'Medisprin' as 'Disprin':
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' use of 'Medisprin' was likely to cause confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that 'Medisprin' was associated with or a product of the plaintiffs, thereby passing off their goods as those of the plaintiffs.
3. Deceptive similarity between 'Disprin' and 'Medisprin':
The court examined whether 'Medisprin' was deceptively similar to 'Disprin' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It was considered whether the defendants' mark so nearly resembled the plaintiffs' registered mark as to be "likely to deceive or cause confusion". The court referenced several legal precedents, including Lord Denning's explanation of "to deceive" and "to cause confusion", and the tests for comparison of word marks formulated by Lord Parker in Pianotist Co. Ltd.'s application.
4. Nature and usage of the products:
The court analyzed the nature of the products, noting that 'Disprin' is an analgesic available over the counter, while 'Medisprin' is a coronary vasodilator requiring a doctor's prescription. The court found that although both drugs contain Aspirin, 'Medisprin' is primarily for heart patients and not for common ailments like 'Disprin'.
5. Class of people dealing with the products and mode of sale:
The court considered the class of people dealing with the products and the mode of sale. It was noted that 'Disprin' is sold even at pan-beedi shops, while 'Medisprin' is a Schedule 'H' drug sold only by licensed chemists against a doctor's prescription. The court referenced several cases, including F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Private Ltd., to highlight that the nature of sale reduces the possibility of confusion.
6. Common elements in trademarks and onus of proving extensive use:
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' mark contained a common element due to the presence of Aspirin and that there were series of marks with similar suffixes in the market. The court found that the defendants provided sufficient prima facie evidence of the use of similar marks in the market, thus rejecting the plaintiffs' submission.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that 'Medisprin' was neither structurally, phonetically, nor visually similar to 'Disprin'. It was determined that the products, packaging, and mode of marketing were different and not likely to cause confusion. Consequently, the notice of motion was dismissed with costs.
-
1992 (4) TMI 252
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the land acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Alleged agreement between the petitioners and the authorities to exclude certain lands from acquisition.
3. Claims of arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory actions by the respondents.
4. Legality of passing piecemeal awards under the Land Acquisition Act.
5. Applicability of the State Government's policy decision to exclude certain lands from acquisition.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Land Acquisition Process:
On February 3, 1970, the Commissioner, Bombay Division, published a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, indicating that certain lands in Thana and Kolaba districts were needed for public purposes, specifically for the planned development and utilization in the Trans Harbour, Panvel, and Trans Thana Creek areas. The notification excluded Gaothan sites, lands already notified for acquisition, lands occupied by religious buildings, burial grounds, and lands belonging to the Central and State Governments and other statutory corporations. Subsequent notifications expanded the area and designated it for the new town development, with the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) appointed as the development authority.
2. Alleged Agreement to Exclude Certain Lands:
The petitioners, owners of land in Panvel, claimed that they had an agreement with the Land Acquisition Officer and an officer from CIDCO to surrender a portion of their land in exchange for the exclusion of the remaining area from acquisition. The petitioners voluntarily surrendered 1 Acre 20 Gunthas and received 80% compensation as advance payment. However, the respondents denied any such agreement, and the court found no evidence to support the petitioners' claim. The court held that any withdrawal of land from acquisition must follow the procedures outlined in Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, which requires a formal notification in the Official Gazette.
3. Claims of Arbitrary, Unreasonable, and Discriminatory Actions:
The petitioners argued that the respondents acted arbitrarily by excluding certain lands from acquisition while continuing with the acquisition of their land. The court found no merit in this claim, noting that the lands allegedly excluded were within the original municipal limits of Panvel, which were specifically excluded from the acquisition notifications. The court also rejected the petitioners' reliance on various judicial precedents, finding them inapplicable to the present case.
4. Legality of Passing Piecemeal Awards:
The petitioners contended that it was impermissible for the Land Acquisition Officer to pass piecemeal awards for different portions of their land. The court rejected this argument, citing amendments to the Land Acquisition Act that allow for multiple notifications under Section 6 and the issuance of separate awards. The court referenced a Division Bench decision that supported the legality of passing separate awards for different portions of the land.
5. Applicability of the State Government's Policy Decision:
The petitioners argued that their land should be excluded from acquisition based on a policy decision by the State Government to exclude houses contiguous to existing Gaothans and municipal limits if constructed before February 4, 1970. The court held that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that any withdrawal of land from acquisition must comply with Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also found that the petitioners' land did not meet the conditions set out in the policy decision, as it was not contiguous to the existing municipal limits.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims. The land acquisition process was deemed valid, and the alleged agreement to exclude certain lands was unsupported by evidence. The respondents' actions were not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and the piecemeal awards were legally permissible. The State Government's policy decision did not apply to the petitioners' land, and any withdrawal from acquisition must follow the statutory requirements.
-
1992 (4) TMI 251
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court in a writ proceeding can set aside an order of punishment if it is arbitrary, grossly excessive, or out of all proportion to the offence committed.
2. Whether the High Court can substitute any other punishment in place of the one imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the High Court in a writ proceeding can set aside an order of punishment if it is arbitrary, grossly excessive, or out of all proportion to the offence committed:
The judgment begins by addressing the question of whether a High Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority if it finds the punishment to be arbitrary, grossly excessive, or out of all proportion to the offence committed. The court notes that previous decisions by two-judge benches of the Orissa High Court had allowed such interference, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Bhagatram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454, and Shankar Das v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 772.
However, another bench of the Orissa High Court in Y. Venkatrao v. South-Eastern Railway, (1991) 71 Cut LT 512, disagreed with this view, citing the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Parma Nanda, AIR 1989 SC 1185, which held that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to impose any punishment to meet the ends of justice. The court also referred to the Constitution Bench decision in State of Orissa v. Bidya Bhusan Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779, which stated that the High Court cannot interfere with the punishment once the misdemeanour is found and proved.
The court further examines whether the observations in paragraph 127 of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416, which suggested that the High Court can substitute a punishment if it finds the original punishment to be arbitrary or grossly excessive, would apply to the present case. The court concludes that these observations were made in the context of Clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and do not apply to cases where the punishment was imposed following a full-fledged departmental enquiry.
2. Whether the High Court can substitute any other punishment in place of the one imposed by the disciplinary authority:
The court discusses the contention that the High Court can substitute a punishment if it finds the original punishment to be disproportionate, as suggested by the Supreme Court in Bhagatram's case. However, it notes that this view was not considered binding in Parma Nanda's case, which held that the High Court does not have the power to substitute a punishment, a power that the Supreme Court can exercise under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The court also addresses the argument that the decision in Parma Nanda's case is per incuriam (given in ignorance of a binding authority) because it did not consider the observation in Bhagatram's case that disproportionate penalties violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court rejects this argument, stating that the decision in Parma Nanda's case is not per incuriam as it did not ignore any binding authority or statutory provision.
The judgment concludes that, based on the current state of law, the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to set aside a punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, even if it finds the punishment to be arbitrary or grossly excessive, in cases where the punishment was imposed following a full-fledged enquiry. The court also notes that the power to pass orders to do "complete justice" is expressly conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 142 of the Constitution, and there is no similar provision for the High Courts.
Separate Judgments:
A.K. Padhi, J. and K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. concurred with the judgment delivered by B. Hansaria, CJ, without delivering separate judgments.
-
1992 (4) TMI 250
Issues:
Interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act and Motor Vehicles Taxation Act in the context of dumpers and shovels; Validity of taxation on vehicles used solely on owner's premises; Differentiation between dumpers and shovels for tax liability.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court judgment involved four appeals against a common judgment of the Judicial-Commissioner of Goa, Daman & Diu regarding taxation of dumpers and shovels used in mining operations in the Union Territory. The respondents claimed they initially paid tax under a mistaken belief that their vehicles were 'motor vehicles' and later stopped paying tax when they realized the error. The respondents challenged orders requiring tax payment, citing violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Judicial Commissioner held that vehicles used solely on the owner's premises were excluded from taxation, relying on previous case law. The Union of India and its officers appealed this decision.
The Court differentiated between dumpers and shovels, defining dumpers as motor vehicles adapted for road use and liable for taxation. Shovels, on the other hand, were not clearly defined in previous cases. The Court noted that the Judicial Commissioner treated dumpers and shovels similarly, but the tax liability for shovels required further examination. The Court emphasized that tax is attracted to vehicles adapted for road use, regardless of actual use, unless they are of a special type only for enclosed premises. The Court held that dumpers, being used for transport of goods, were liable for compensatory tax for road availability.
The Court allowed appeals related to dumpers, setting aside the Judicial Commissioner's decision and upholding the tax orders. However, for shovels, the Court found insufficient information to determine tax liability and remitted the matter back to the High Court for further consideration. The High Court was directed to permit parties to amend pleadings and provide evidence on the nature and function of shovels for a proper decision. The Court awarded costs to the appellants in all four appeals.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the tax liability of dumpers as motor vehicles adapted for road use, affirming the tax orders. For shovels, further examination was required to determine tax liability, leading to the remittance of the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration based on additional evidence and pleadings.
-
1992 (4) TMI 249
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Ext. P4 letter dated 10-9-1991.
2. Obligation of the bank to maintain confidentiality under Section 52 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959.
3. Applicability of Section 6 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891.
4. Public interest and duty of the bank to disclose information.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Ext. P4 Letter Dated 10-9-1991:
The appellant, a public sector undertaking, challenged the Ext. P4 letter from the State Bank of Travancore, which refused to disclose details of the third respondent's account, citing statutory obligations to maintain secrecy. The court examined whether the bank's refusal was justified under the law. The judgment concluded that the bank's reliance on Section 52 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, did not provide absolute protection, thus quashing Ext. P4 and directing the bank to furnish the requested details.
2. Obligation of the Bank to Maintain Confidentiality:
The court analyzed Section 52 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, which imposes a duty of fidelity and secrecy on the bank, with exceptions for disclosures required by law or customary banking practices. It was noted that the duty of secrecy is not absolute and is subject to exceptions like legal compulsion, public duty, bank's interest, and customer consent. The court highlighted that public interest in the proper use of public funds supersedes the private duty of confidentiality.
3. Applicability of Section 6 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891:
The court addressed whether the appellant's request for account details could be accommodated under Section 6 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, which allows inspection of bank books for legal proceedings. The court concluded that the current case did not fall within the scope of Section 6 as there was no main proceeding pending that necessitated such inspection. However, the court recognized the appellant's need for information to comply with a High Court judgment, thus justifying the request outside the typical application of Section 6.
4. Public Interest and Duty of the Bank to Disclose Information:
The court emphasized that the appellant, a public sector undertaking, was dealing with public funds, and ensuring these funds were not misused was a matter of public interest. The court held that public interest in recovering potentially misused funds justified overriding the bank's duty of confidentiality. The court also recognized the appellant's obligation to comply with a High Court judgment, which necessitated obtaining the requested information.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the learned single judge's judgment, and quashing Ext. P4. The court directed the bank to provide details of the third respondent's account, emphasizing the public interest in ensuring proper use of public funds and the appellant's need to comply with judicial directives. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
-
1992 (4) TMI 248
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the advertisement dated 29.7.1989 for direct recruitment of Junior Electrical Engineers.
2. Compliance with State Government directions dated 18.7.1988 and 5.5.1989.
3. Validity of the undertaking given by the petitioners.
4. Authority of the State Government u/s 78-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
5. Applicability of Rule 7 of the Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Electrical Engineer (General) Cadre Rules, 1982.
Summary of Judgment:
Issue 1: Validity of the Advertisement
The petitioners challenged the advertisement dated 29.7.1989 issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board for filling up vacancies of Junior Electrical Engineers by direct recruitment. The High Court upheld the advertisement, stating that the Board had the authority to issue it and that the petitioners had no right to claim the posts based on the expired 1984 merit list.
Issue 2: Compliance with State Government Directions
The petitioners argued that the Board should comply with the State Government's directions dated 18.7.1988 and 5.5.1989 to appoint them as Junior Electrical Engineers. The High Court held that these directions did not constitute questions of policy u/s 78-A of the Act and were not binding on the Board, which has autonomous authority to make appointments u/s 15 of the Act.
Issue 3: Validity of the Undertaking
The petitioners had given an undertaking that they would not claim the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers when they were appointed as Operators. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners that such an undertaking cannot estop them from being considered for future vacancies. However, they must compete with other candidates as per the rules.
Issue 4: Authority of the State Government u/s 78-A
The High Court and the Supreme Court both held that the directions given by the State Government did not involve questions of policy and thus were not binding on the Board. The Board's power to appoint officers and employees u/s 15 of the Act was upheld.
Issue 5: Applicability of Rule 7
The High Court noted that Rule 7 of the Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Electrical Engineer (General) Cadre Rules, 1982, as amended, requires a Selection Committee to consider the cases of Diploma holders for appointment as Junior Electrical Engineers. The Supreme Court directed the Board to issue a fresh advertisement and make appointments in the ratio of 75% by direct recruitment and 25% by absorption, as per Rule 7.
Final Directions:
The Supreme Court directed the Board to issue a fresh advertisement for filling the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers up to 31st March 1992, adhering to the 75-25 ratio for direct recruitment and absorption. Age bar would not disqualify those included in the 1984 panel list. Both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (4) TMI 247
Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Rule 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Brewery Rules, 1970.
2. Legality of the demand for annual charges exceeding 5% of the duty leviable on the issue made from the brewery.
Summary:
Issue 1: Vires of Rule 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Brewery Rules, 1970
The appellant challenged the vires of Rule 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Brewery Rules, 1970, framed u/s 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915. Rule 22 mandates that the Excise Commissioner appoint an officer-in-charge of the brewery, with the pay of such officers met by the Government. However, if the annual charges exceed 5% of the duty leviable on the issue made from the brewery, the excess shall be realized from the brewer. The High Court upheld the rule, viewing it as a condition of the licence for working the brewery and within the rule-making power conferred u/s 62(2)(h) read with Section 28 of the Act.
Issue 2: Legality of the Demand for Annual Charges
The appellant, a company manufacturing and selling beer, contested the recovery of annual charges relating to the pay of the officer-in-charge exceeding 5% of the duty leviable. The High Court supported the view that the demand was reasonable and within the rule-making power. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the provisions and found that the demand, in essence, was an additional excise duty not authorized under Section 25 of the Act. The Court referred to precedents like Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that no tax could be imposed by any rule unless the statute specifically authorizes it. The Court concluded that the demand was not a further fee or consideration but an additional excise duty, thus ultra vires the Act and beyond the rule-making power of the State.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 22, to the extent it permits raising a demand equivalent to additional excise duty without it being actually due, was declared ultra vires the Act. The demand raised against the appellant was quashed, and the appellant was awarded costs.
........
|
9911796707
