|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 453 Records
-
1996 (2) TMI 610
The Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices J.S. Verma, N.P. Singh, and B.N. Kirpal, issued an order dismissing the appeal. The judgment is cited as 1996 (2) TMI 610 - SC Order (LB). No further legal reasoning or details are provided in the text.
-
1996 (2) TMI 609
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Request for adjournment due to religious observance and health reasons.
3. Challenge to the imposition of penalty based on lack of wilful default and technical breach.
4. Waiver of pre-deposit requirement and decision to dispose of the appeal without hearing the appellant.
5. Reference to legal cases supporting the argument that contravention was technical.
6. Explanation by the appellant regarding the receipt and use of the amount received.
7. Initiation of action based on information from another case of havala payments.
8. Consideration of circumstances in determining penalty and criticism of the basis for penalty calculation.
9. Plea of absence of mens rea and ignorance of law.
10. Assessment of excessive penalty and mitigation of culpability.
11. Decision to sustain the contravention charge but reduce the penalty amount.
12. Final order reducing the penalty and setting a deadline for payment.
Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an appeal against the imposition of a penalty under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant was penalized for receiving a payment from an unknown person on behalf of individuals resident in the United Kingdom, which was deemed a contravention of the Act.
2. The appellant requested an adjournment citing religious observance and the ill health of their advocate. However, the Tribunal decided to proceed without the appellant's presence, given the nature of the challenge to the penalty imposition.
3. The appellant contested the penalty on grounds of lack of wilful default, conscious involvement, or deliberate defiance of the law, arguing that it was a technical breach. The Tribunal noted the appellant's stance and waived the pre-deposit requirement due to the absence of a dispute regarding the contravention.
4. The Tribunal chose to dispose of the appeal without hearing the appellant in person or through an advocate, considering the appellant's detailed submissions challenging the penalty imposition.
5. The appellant referenced legal cases to support the argument that the contravention was merely technical, emphasizing mitigating factors such as the charitable use of the received amount.
6. The appellant explained that the received amount was for a community welfare project and was used for charitable purposes, attributing the offense to ignorance of the law and committing not to repeat the mistake.
7. The action against the appellant stemmed from information related to havala payments, but the Tribunal found the appellant's explanations and actions, such as acknowledging the receipt and depositing the amount in the Society's accounts, significant in assessing the penalty.
8. Criticism was directed at the basis for calculating the penalty, which considered the source of the payment rather than the appellant's direct involvement and actions related to the received amount.
9. The appellant's pleas of absence of mens rea and ignorance of the law were addressed, with the Tribunal concluding that these factors did not absolve the appellant of the contravention.
10. Despite acknowledging mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal found the penalty excessive, leading to a decision to reduce it based on the specific circumstances of the case.
11. The Tribunal sustained the contravention charge but reduced the penalty amount significantly, taking into account the appellant's knowledge of the transaction and the benefit derived by the Society.
12. The final order partially allowed the appeal, reducing the penalty from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 10,000 and providing a deadline for payment, failing which the respondents could recover the amount through legal means.
-
1996 (2) TMI 608
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for contravention.
2. Appeal against the penalty imposed.
3. Contravention related to acquisition of foreign exchange without permission.
4. Disputed acquisition of foreign exchange from a friend.
5. Consideration of circumstances in determining penalty amount.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against a penalty imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant was alleged to have acquired foreign exchange without the required permission. The appellant contended financial constraints due to disrupted legal practice in a conflicted area as a reason for not being able to deposit the penalty amount. The respondent argued against the appellant's plea, stating that the appellant failed to refute the findings of the Adjudicating Officer. The appellant claimed to have won a sum of foreign exchange in a game of Rummy and a horse race in Hong Kong, disputing the acquisition of another sum from a friend. However, discrepancies in the appellant's statements were noted, leading to a finding of contravention despite the claimed manner of acquisition.
The Adjudicating Officer's decision was upheld regarding the contravention of section 8(1) based on the lack of permission for the acquisition of foreign exchange, even if acquired through winnings. The notification cited did not exempt the appellant from the contravention. The appellant's financial situation and reasons for the acquisition were considered, leading to a reduction in the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000. The appellant was granted 30 days to deposit the revised penalty amount, failing which the respondents were authorized to recover the penalty as per the law.
In conclusion, while the appeal partially succeeded in reducing the penalty amount, the finding of contravention under section 8(1) was upheld. The judgment balanced the circumstances of the appellant, acknowledging financial constraints and the nature of the contravention, resulting in a reduced penalty amount to meet the ends of justice.
-
1996 (2) TMI 607
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of Indian currency of Rs. 1,98,000.
2. Contravention of Section 8(1) read with Section 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
3. Voluntariness of the appellant's confessional statement.
4. Nexus between seized Indian currency and alleged contravention.
5. Lawful possession and acquisition of foreign currency.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Confiscation of Indian Currency of Rs. 1,98,000:
The appellant contested the confiscation of Rs. 1,98,000, claiming it was from his PCO-STD business. The tribunal found no evidence linking the seized Indian currency to the alleged contravention, noting that the only evidence was the appellant's retracted statement. The tribunal emphasized that the respondent did not verify the appellant's business records during the search. Consequently, the order of confiscation of the Indian currency was deemed unsustainable and set aside.
2. Contravention of Section 8(1) read with Section 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973:
The appellant was charged with purchasing foreign exchange of US $10,100 and selling US $6,000. The tribunal found no corroborative evidence of sale and purchase except the appellant's retracted statement. The tribunal modified the charge to "otherwise acquiring foreign exchange in violation of Section 8(1)" due to lack of evidence for sale and purchase. The finding of contravention of Section 8(2) was set aside.
3. Voluntariness of the Appellant's Confessional Statement:
The appellant argued that his statement was involuntary, recorded while in custody, and retracted at the first opportunity. The tribunal noted alterations in dates on the panchanama and the appellant's statement, supporting the claim of involuntariness. The tribunal held that an involuntary statement cannot be taken into evidence, thus undermining the basis for the alleged contraventions.
4. Nexus Between Seized Indian Currency and Alleged Contravention:
The appellant claimed the seized Indian currency was from his PCO-STD business, supported by account statements and computer printouts. The tribunal found no nexus between the seized Indian currency and the alleged contravention, as the respondent did not have any information about the alleged sale of US $6,000 at the time of seizure. The tribunal concluded that the confiscation of the Indian currency was unjustified.
5. Lawful Possession and Acquisition of Foreign Currency:
The appellant did not deny the recovery of foreign currency but claimed it was left by a customer for safe custody. The tribunal found the appellant's explanation unsubstantiated and noted that the foreign currency was concealed, adding to the appellant's culpability. The tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish lawful possession of the foreign currency, thus upholding the finding of contravention of Section 8(1) for otherwise acquiring foreign exchange.
Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of confiscation of Indian currency of Rs. 1,98,000 and the finding of contravention of Section 8(2). The finding of contravention of Section 8(1) was upheld, but modified to "otherwise acquiring foreign exchange in violation of Section 8(1)." The penalty of Rs. 32,000 was upheld, and the respondent was directed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 1,68,000 to the appellant within 45 days.
-
1996 (2) TMI 606
Issues:
1. Appeal against observations in a previous order.
2. Release of seized amount and penalty imposition.
3. Justification for enhancing penalty amount.
4. Compliance with statutory provisions regarding penalty imposition.
5. Consideration of circumstances for penalty modification.
Analysis:
The matter before the Appellate Tribunal involved an appeal against the observations made in a previous order by the Board. The appellant's counsel argued that an amount seized in 1981 had not been released despite a previous order by the Board. The appellant had been penalized for contraventions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the counsel sought a proportionate reduction in the penalty amount. The appellant had deposited the penalty amount before filing the appeal, and the counsel highlighted the appellant's cooperation with the legal process.
The respondent contended that the penalty amount was determined in consideration of an order of confiscation, which had been set aside. Therefore, the respondent argued for an enhancement of the penalty amount, citing statutory provisions allowing for penalties up to five times the contravened amount. The respondent proposed an increase in the penalty by the amount initially seized.
The Chairman of the Tribunal carefully considered both parties' submissions. He disagreed with the respondent's argument that only the quantum of enhanced penalty needed determination. The Chairman emphasized the need to assess whether the penalty should be enhanced at all, in accordance with statutory provisions requiring appellants to be heard before any prejudicial modification. He acknowledged that any penalty enhancement would prejudice the appellant and stressed the importance of considering the parties' arguments in deciding on penalty modification.
Ultimately, the Chairman sided with the appellant's arguments. He noted discrepancies in the contravened amount upheld and the penalty imposed, as well as the appellant's prolonged deprivation of the seized amount. Considering these factors, the Chairman found no sufficient justification for enhancing the penalty amount. He ordered the discharge of the notice for penalty enhancement and declared the existing penalty amount final. The respondent was directed to refund the seized amount to the appellant within a specified timeframe, bringing the matter to a conclusion.
-
1996 (2) TMI 605
Issues:
Penalty imposed for contravention of sections 8(1), 9(1)(a), and 14 of the FERA, 1973.
Analysis:
1. Section 8(1) Contravention:
The appellant was penalized for allegedly acquiring foreign exchange and borrowing without complying with the provisions of section 8(1) of FERA, 1973. The appellant acquired stg. Pound 25,000 and borrowed stg. Pound 78,000 for film production expenses. However, the appellant clarified that the funds were provided by Dr. Gaur for film expenses, and he accounted for all expenditures as per their agreement. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not personally acquire the foreign exchange for personal use but for film expenses. The term "acquired" in section 8(1) carries legal significance, and the mere handling of foreign exchange does not constitute acquisition. Therefore, the appellant was not found guilty of contravening section 8(1) concerning stg. Pound 25,000.
2. Section 8(1) Borrowing Allegation:
Regarding the borrowing of stg. Pound 78,000, the Tribunal considered the transaction's legal implications. The appellant explained that the funds were arranged by Dr. Gaur through his company, Gaur Developments Ltd., to fulfill the film's financial requirements. The mortgage deed executed was deemed a formal arrangement to justify the fund transfer. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction was not a personal borrowing by the appellant but a financial arrangement between Gaur Developments Ltd. and Kaleidoscope Films. As such, the charge of borrowing stg. Pound 78,000 under section 8(1) was not sustained.
3. Section 9(1)(a) Contravention:
The appellant was also penalized under section 9(1)(a) for alleged acquisition and borrowing of foreign exchange. However, the Tribunal found that all expenses were borne by Dr. Gaur, and the appellant did not personally acquire or borrow foreign exchange. Therefore, the charge of contravention of section 9(1)(a) was deemed misconceived and set aside.
4. Section 14 Contravention:
The Tribunal ruled that since the appellant did not own or hold the foreign exchange in question, the charge under section 14 did not apply. Section 14 pertains to foreign exchange ownership or holding rights, which the appellant did not possess. Consequently, the charge under section 14 was not sustained.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the refund of the deposited amount. The judgment highlighted the legal nuances of acquiring, borrowing, and ownership of foreign exchange under FERA, ultimately absolving the appellant of the alleged contraventions.
-
1996 (2) TMI 604
Issues:
- Imposition of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for contravention of specific sections.
- Lack of personal hearing before passing the impugned order.
- Withdrawal of subsequent adjudication orders and its impact on the impugned order.
- Request for waiver of pre-deposit and refund of deposited amounts.
Analysis:
The judgment involves appeals arising from a common adjudication order imposing penalties on three appellants for contraventions of sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d), and 19(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The penalties ranged from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 60,000, with an additional confiscation of Rs. 10,000 seized from one appellant's business premises. The first appellant did not appear, citing involvement in a criminal matter, while the second and third appellants were represented by Shri Mahendra Singh. The issue of lack of personal hearing before passing the impugned order was raised, emphasizing that the appellants were not afforded a personal hearing despite requests, leading to the challenge of the order on procedural grounds.
Shri Mahendra Singh argued that subsequent adjudication orders dated 16-8-1994, which were withdrawn by the Adjudicating Officer, rendered the original impugned order non-existent for the three appellants. He contended that the impugned order should be set aside due to the withdrawal of these subsequent orders and the lack of legal effect. Additionally, he requested a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement, highlighting that two appellants had already partially deposited penalty amounts, which would cause undue hardship if required to be fully deposited.
Upon review of the adjudication file, it was established that the impugned order was indeed passed without affording the appellants a personal hearing, contrary to their requests. The Adjudicating Officer subsequently granted a personal hearing and passed fresh adjudication orders after considering written submissions. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed legally unsustainable on the grounds of lack of personal hearing and the subsequent adjudication orders superseding it. As a result, all three appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned order against the appellants.
Regarding the pre-deposit amounts, it was ordered that any amounts deposited by the appellants should be refunded within 45 days of the order. Additionally, the confiscated amount of Rs. 10,000 was to be refunded to the appellant from whom it was seized, concluding the judgment comprehensively.
-
1996 (2) TMI 603
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties on two appellants for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Request for waiver of pre-deposit by the appellants.
3. Allegation of the impugned order being passed ex parte without proper opportunity for defense.
4. Defense arguments against the contravention and penalties imposed.
5. Consideration of mitigating factors for penalty determination.
6. Applicability of penalties on partners of a partnership firm.
7. Decision on the appeals and penalty amounts.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with appeals against penalties imposed on two appellants for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The first appellant was penalized Rs. 1,50,000 for contravention of section 18(2) read with section 18(3, while the second appellant faced a similar penalty under section 68(1) of the Act.
2. The appellants requested a waiver of pre-deposit, arguing their financial inability to pay the penalties. The first appellant, a partnership firm, ceased operations in 1986 with no assets or bank balance. The second appellant, a consultant, claimed insufficient income to cover the penalty amount.
3. The appellants contended that the impugned order was passed ex parte without adequate opportunity to present their defense. They argued that the penalties were unjustified, given their compliance history and the circumstances leading to the outstanding export proceeds.
4. The defense argued against the contravention, stating that the appellants had regularly received payments from foreign buyers and had taken necessary steps to recover outstanding amounts. They highlighted the impact of DRI actions on the delayed remittances and the lack of culpable acts or omissions on their part.
5. Mitigating factors were considered for penalty determination, with the defense emphasizing the lack of intention to retain export proceeds outside the country. The Chairman acknowledged the appellants' past compliance and reduced the penalty amount for the first appellant to Rs. 35,000.
6. The judgment addressed the imposition of penalties on partners of a partnership firm, noting that penalizing partners in addition to the firm might be unjust. The penalty on the second appellant was set aside based on this principle.
7. Ultimately, the appeals were partly allowed, upholding the contravention for the first appellant but reducing the penalty amount. The impugned order concerning the second appellant was set aside, and a 30-day period was granted for penalty payment.
This detailed analysis covers the issues, arguments, and the Chairman's decision regarding the penalties imposed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
-
1996 (2) TMI 602
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Allegations of contravention of section 16(1)(b) of the Act.
3. Justification for penalties imposed on the appellants.
4. Consideration of mitigating circumstances for penalty reduction.
5. Application of sections 16 and 68 of the Act in penalty imposition.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board deals with two appeals challenging penalties imposed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The first issue revolves around the contravention of section 16(1)(b) of the Act, where penalties of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 10,000 were imposed on the appellants. The appellants sought a hearing in Calcutta due to financial constraints. The Tribunal, after reviewing the applications and grounds of appeal, found justification to reduce the penalties, waiving the requirement of pre-deposit due to small penalty amounts and impracticality of holding a hearing in Calcutta.
The second issue involves the specific charge of contravention of section 16(1)(b) based on allegations in the Memorandum of show cause. The first appellant was alleged to have a right to receive foreign exchange as commission from two foreign entities. The Tribunal analyzed the circumstances of non-receipt of the commission and the arguments presented by both parties, emphasizing the obligation to report such matters to the RBI as per section 16(2) of the Act.
Regarding the third issue, the Tribunal acknowledged the validity of the commission amounts due to the appellants but highlighted the necessity of reporting the non-receipt to the RBI despite commercial considerations. The judgment differentiated between the lack of legal action feasibility and the charge of contravention, ultimately concluding that contravention occurred only in specific instances.
Mitigating circumstances were considered for penalty reduction, leading to the decision to reduce the penalty on the first appellant to Rs. 7,500. The fourth issue addressed the quantum of penalties imposed, taking into account the findings on contravention for each invoice and the absence of evidence supporting penalties on the second appellant under section 68(1) and (2) of the Act.
In the final issue, the Tribunal partially allowed Appeal No. 349 of 1995 by reducing the penalty and set aside the impugned order against the second appellant in Appeal No. 348 of 1995. The first appellant was directed to pay the reduced penalty within 30 days, failing which the respondent could recover the amount legally. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and factual aspects surrounding the imposition and reduction of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
-
1996 (2) TMI 601
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the dismissal order.
2. Competence of the Commandant to pass the dismissal order.
3. Requirement of an enquiry before dismissal.
4. Effect of treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave on the dismissal order.
Summary:
1. Legality of the dismissal order:
The respondent, a BSF constable, challenged his dismissal order as illegal and void, seeking reinstatement. The trial court partly decreed the suit, granting the declaration but refusing the mandatory injunction. Both parties appealed, with the respondent's appeal being allowed and the appellant's dismissed. The Delhi High Court also dismissed the appellant's second appeal, leading to this appeal.
2. Competence of the Commandant to pass the dismissal order:
The respondent was deemed a deserter after being absent without leave. The Commandant dismissed him from service u/s 11(2) of the BSF Act. The trial court held that only the Director General or a prescribed officer could exercise this power, and there was no evidence that the Commandant was competent. The appellate court agreed, noting that the absence was treated as extraordinary leave, regularizing it and invalidating the dismissal.
3. Requirement of an enquiry before dismissal:
The appellant argued that the dismissal was not a penalty for an offence but an exercise of power u/s 11(2) of the Act, which does not require an enquiry. However, the court held that an enquiry is necessary to comply with natural justice principles. Rule 20 of the BSF Rules mandates an enquiry for termination due to misconduct, requiring the Director General to inform the person and provide particulars of allegations. The show cause notice issued to the respondent complied with Rule 20, but no further enquiry was held as the respondent did not reply.
4. Effect of treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave on the dismissal order:
The respondent's counsel argued that treating the absence as extraordinary leave regularized it, making the dismissal inconsistent. The court distinguished this case from others where absence was treated as leave, ceasing to be misconduct. Here, the dismissal was not a penalty for misconduct but due to the respondent's conduct rendering his retention undesirable. Treating the absence as extraordinary leave did not invalidate the dismissal.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondent's suit was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.
-
1996 (2) TMI 600
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 2(g)(iv) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.
2. Competence of the State Legislature to levy stamp duty on amalgamation orders.
3. Whether the impugned duty is a tax on the transfer of property.
4. Repugnancy between the Bombay Stamp Act and the Companies Act, 1956.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Constitutionality of Section 2(g)(iv) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958
The petitioners argued that Section 2(g)(iv) of the Bombay Stamp Act, which includes every order made by the High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act in respect of amalgamation of companies, is unconstitutional. They contended that an order of the court approving a scheme of amalgamation is not merely an act of the parties but involves judicial investigation, and hence, cannot be subjected to stamp duty.
The court held that the inclusion of court orders, compromise decrees, or amalgamation schemes for stamp duty does not lead to startling results. The court referred to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which already subjects certain court orders to stamp duty. The court also cited various precedents, including Ruby Sales and Services (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (1994)1SCC531, which held that a consent decree transferring property is an instrument subject to stamp duty.
Issue 2: Competence of the State Legislature to Levy Stamp Duty on Amalgamation Orders
The petitioners contended that the State Legislature cannot impose stamp duty on an order of amalgamation as it is not a document or instrument but a judicial order. They argued that such a levy is beyond the scope of the State Legislature's powers.
The court rejected this argument, stating that the State Legislature has the competence to levy stamp duty on instruments, including court orders that transfer property. The court referred to Purshottam H. Jadye v. V. B. Potdar (1966)ILLJ412SC and Mohan Chowdhury v. Chief Commissioner, 1964CriLJ132, which interpreted "instrument" to include formal legal writings like court orders.
Issue 3: Whether the Impugned Duty is a Tax on the Transfer of Property
The petitioners argued that the impugned duty is essentially a tax on the transfer of property, which the State Legislature is not competent to impose. They contended that the duty on amalgamation orders is, in reality, a tax on the amalgamation of companies.
The court held that the stamp duty is levied on the instrument (the amalgamation order) and not on the transfer of property per se. The measure of the duty is based on the valuation of the property transferred, which is a valid basis for determining stamp duty. The court cited Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority [1972]3SCR332 and Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1995] 1 Supp. SCC 707, which upheld the validity of using property valuation as a measure for stamp duty.
Issue 4: Repugnancy between the Bombay Stamp Act and the Companies Act, 1956
The petitioners argued that the provisions of Section 2(g)(iv) of the Bombay Stamp Act are repugnant to Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, and hence, the State legislation cannot prevail.
The court found no repugnancy between the two statutes. It held that the Bombay Stamp Act does not invalidate the transfer of property under an amalgamation scheme; it merely requires the instrument to be duly stamped. The court referred to Navjivan Mills Co. Ltd., In re [1972] 42 Comp Cas 265 and Hindustan Lever Employees' Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [1995] 83 Comp Cas 30 (SC) to support the view that the court's role in sanctioning an amalgamation scheme is limited and does not substitute the compromise or arrangement between the companies.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 2(g)(iv) read with Article 25 of Schedule I to the Bombay Stamp Act is constitutional and within the competence of the State Legislature. The court also clarified that the stamp duty is levied on the instrument of amalgamation and not on the transfer of property itself. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and interim reliefs were vacated but continued up to April 20, 1996, at the request of the petitioners' counsel.
-
1996 (2) TMI 599
Issues:
Refusal of permission to lead evidence in support of dismissal order by Industrial Tribunal.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in denying the appellant company the opportunity to present evidence to support the dismissal of the respondent-employee. The appellant argued that even if the inquiry findings were deemed perverse, the employer should still be allowed to lead evidence. The respondent contended that the insertion of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act altered this position. However, the Court referred to the decision in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India v. Management, emphasizing that Section 11A empowers the Tribunal to assess evidence and decide on the justification of the employer's decision. The Court clarified that Section 11A did not abolish the employer's right to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, even if the initial inquiry was flawed or perverse.
The respondent highlighted the proviso to Section 11A, which prohibits the introduction of fresh evidence during proceedings. However, the Court, citing Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., rejected this argument and upheld the employer's right to present additional evidence. The Court reiterated that a domestic inquiry tainted by procedural flaws or perversity does not provide a stronger basis for disciplinary action than no inquiry at all. It referenced various cases to emphasize the employer's recognized right to adduce evidence in disciplinary matters. The Court clarified the stage at which an employer should request permission to present additional evidence and emphasized the need for the Tribunal to allow such evidence before closing the proceedings.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowing both parties to present evidence before the Industrial Tribunal for rehearing the matter. To expedite the proceedings, the Court directed the completion of the tribunal proceedings within six months, with the appellant given two months to present further evidence and the workmen one month thereafter. The appeal was disposed of without costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 598
Issues Involved:
1. Definition and applicability of the term "dealer" under the U.P. Oil Seeds and Oilseeds Products Control Order, 1966, and the Pulses, Edible Oil-seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977.
2. Requirement of a license for storing edible oils for manufacturing purposes.
3. Validity of the High Court's quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Definition and Applicability of the Term "Dealer":
The primary issue revolves around whether the respondent qualifies as a "dealer" under the U.P. Oil Seeds and Oilseeds Products Control Order, 1966, and the Pulses, Edible Oil-seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977. According to Clause 2(g) of the 1966 Order, a "dealer" is defined as a person engaged in the business of purchase or sale or storage for sale of oil seeds and oilseeds products. Similarly, Clause 2(f) of the 1977 Order defines a "dealer" as a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale, or storage for sale of any pulses, edible oil seeds, or edible oils. The Court concluded that even if the respondent stored oils for manufacturing paints and varnish, he still qualifies as a dealer because he stored quantities exceeding the prescribed limits. The Court referenced the case of State of A.P. v. Abdul Bakhi & Bros., where it was held that storing commodities for manufacturing purposes still qualifies one as a dealer.
2. Requirement of a License for Storing Edible Oils:
The Court examined whether the respondent needed a license for storing edible oils used in manufacturing. Both Orders mandate that no person shall carry on business as a dealer in edible oilseeds or oils without a license if their stock exceeds specified quantities. The respondent did not possess a license and stored substantial quantities of soyabean oil, castor oil, and refined soyabean oil, which are categorized as edible oils. Thus, the respondent was in violation of the Orders, making him liable to be prosecuted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
3. Validity of the High Court's Quashing of the FIR:
The High Court had quashed the FIR on the basis that the respondent was not a dealer in oil seeds or edible oils. The Supreme Court found this to be incorrect, stating that the High Court misinterpreted the definition of "dealer." The Court emphasized that the FIR contained all necessary ingredients of the offense, including the storage of oils without a license. The Court referenced previous judgments, including State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand and Anr., and State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, to highlight that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold, thereby thwarting the prosecution process.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within four weeks. The appropriate Court was instructed to dispose of the case within six months. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal definitions and procedural requirements, particularly in cases involving economic offenses.
-
1996 (2) TMI 597
Issues Involved:
1. Filing of list of detenus under TADA.
2. Release of TADA detenus without proper evidence or procedure.
3. Speedy trial and adequacy of Designated Courts.
4. Review of cases by Review/Screening Committees.
5. Grant of bail to TADA undertrials.
Summary:
1. Filing of List of Detenus under TADA:
The petitioner requested a direction for the respondents to file a list of detenus lodged in jails under TADA. Affidavits from Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and the Central Government provided information on the number of pending TADA cases and Designated Courts in various States.
2. Release of TADA Detenus without Proper Evidence or Procedure:
The petitioner sought the release of TADA detenus where proper evidence was lacking or the prescribed procedure was not followed. The Court noted that the invocation of TADA provisions in unwarranted cases is a misuse and abuse of the Act by the police.
3. Speedy Trial and Adequacy of Designated Courts:
The Court highlighted the lack of adequate Designated Courts, leading to delays in the trial of TADA cases. For example, Assam had 2908 live cases with only one Designated Court. The Court emphasized the necessity of a speedy trial, especially given the stringent bail provisions u/s 20(8) of TADA.
4. Review of Cases by Review/Screening Committees:
The Court referred to the directions in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab for constituting Review/Screening Committees to ensure correct invocation of TADA provisions. The affidavits showed that many cases reviewed by these committees resulted in the withdrawal of TADA charges. However, the Court noted the need for more independent scrutiny, especially for cases filed by C.B.I.
5. Grant of Bail to TADA Undertrials:
The Court acknowledged the need to balance individual liberty with community safety. It proposed a pragmatic approach to bail, categorizing undertrials into four groups based on the severity of their involvement. The Court provided specific conditions for granting bail, such as reporting to the police station weekly, remaining within the jurisdiction of the Designated Court, and depositing passports. The Court also allowed for the relaxation of these conditions in certain cases and emphasized the necessity of a Review Committee to ensure TADA provisions are not unnecessarily invoked.
Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to alleviate the current situation, emphasizing the need for efficient investigation and an adequate number of Designated Courts to ensure speedy trials and protect both society and the rights of the accused.
-
1996 (2) TMI 596
Issues:
1. Bail application filed by the petitioner.
2. Violation of mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Non-compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
4. Delay in producing the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours.
5. Interpretation of the term "arrest" in the context of custody.
6. Medical treatment requirement as a ground for bail.
7. Discrepancies in timing and panchnama recording.
8. Admissibility of the confession statement recorded by the Customs Officer.
9. Gravity of the offense and restricted power of bail under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Analysis:
The petitioner, an accused in an N.D.P.S. case, filed a bail application after being denied bail by the Special Judge. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of opium at the airport, leading to his arrest. The defense argued violations of the N.D.P.S. Act, including non-compliance with Section 50, defect in the investigation, and delay in producing the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours. The court examined the legality of the arrest and custody, emphasizing the distinction between "arrest" and "custody" based on legal precedents. The court rejected the argument of illegal detention, citing the formal arrest and timely production before the Magistrate. The court also dismissed the medical treatment requirement as a basis for bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offense. Discrepancies in timing and panchnama recording were deemed premature for consideration during a bail application. The confession statement made by the petitioner to the Customs Officer was deemed admissible as evidence of his involvement in the crime. Ultimately, considering the gravity of the offense and the limited bail provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act, the court dismissed the bail application and directed expedited trial proceedings due to the petitioner's custody status.
-
1996 (2) TMI 595
Issues Involved:
1. Negligence in performing the sterilisation operation.
2. Vicarious liability of the State of Maharashtra.
3. Causation of death due to negligence.
4. Adequacy of medical care provided post-operation.
5. Tampering with medical records.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Negligence in performing the sterilisation operation:
The appellants claimed that the sterilisation operation performed by respondent No. 2 on Chandrikabai was done negligently, resulting in a mop being left inside her abdomen. This negligence was supported by the testimony of Dr. Divan, who found the mop during a second operation. The trial court accepted this evidence and held respondent No. 2 negligent, while the High Court acknowledged the negligence in leaving the mop but did not find it to be the cause of death.
2. Vicarious liability of the State of Maharashtra:
The High Court initially ruled that the State could not be held liable for tortious acts in a hospital maintained by it, considering it a sovereign function. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, citing precedents like State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and Anr., and N. Nagendra Rao and Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which established that the State can be vicariously liable for negligence of its employees in non-sovereign functions, including running a hospital.
3. Causation of death due to negligence:
The trial court found that the negligence of respondent No. 2 in leaving the mop inside Chandrikabai's abdomen led to her death due to peritonitis. The High Court, however, found conflicting expert opinions on the exact cause of death and concluded that the appellants failed to prove causation. The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, determining that the negligence in leaving the mop was the proximate cause of death, thereby holding respondents liable.
4. Adequacy of medical care provided post-operation:
The appellants alleged that respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to provide proper post-operative care, which was supported by the deteriorating condition of Chandrikabai post-operation. The trial court agreed with this, but the High Court found the evidence insufficient to establish inadequate care. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the overall negligence, including inadequate post-operative care, contributed to the fatal outcome.
5. Tampering with medical records:
The trial court observed that the original medical documents were filed late and appeared tampered with, leading to the rejection of the respondents' expert evidence. The High Court acknowledged some tampering but did not find it sufficient to affect the case's outcome. The Supreme Court did not find this issue central to its decision but noted the trial court's findings on tampering as part of the overall negligence.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree, holding the State of Maharashtra vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees, resulting in Chandrikabai's death. The appellants were awarded damages of Rs. 36,000, with costs throughout.
-
1996 (2) TMI 594
Issues Involved:
1. Sustainability of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a dishonored post-dated cheque due to account closure.
2. Interpretation of Section 138 concerning the requirement of an active bank account at the time of cheque issuance and presentation.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Sustainability of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a dishonored post-dated cheque due to account closure:
The primary issue in this case was whether prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is sustainable when a post-dated cheque is dishonored due to the closure of the drawer's bank account. The petitioner issued a cheque dated 5-9-1992, which was dishonored with the endorsement "account closed." The petitioner argued that since the account was closed before the cheque's presentation, the transaction does not fall under Section 138. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that Section 138 does not limit the reasons for cheque dishonor to insufficient funds alone. The court cited the Division Bench decision in Rakesh Porwal v. Narayan Joglekar, which clarified that the circumstances causing dishonor are irrelevant; the mere fact of non-payment is sufficient to attract Section 138. The court concluded that closure of an account falls within the scope of Section 138, as the legislation aims to ensure the credibility of cheque transactions and prevent dishonest practices.
2. Interpretation of Section 138 concerning the requirement of an active bank account at the time of cheque issuance and presentation:
The petitioner contended that for Section 138 to apply, the bank account must be active at the time of both cheque issuance and presentation. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the essential elements under Section 138 are the dishonoring of the cheque and the drawer's failure to pay the amount within 15 days of receiving notice. The court emphasized that the reason for dishonor, including account closure, is immaterial. The court highlighted that the legislative intent behind Section 138 is to ensure that cheques are issued responsibly and to provide a mechanism for rectifying minor mistakes within 15 days. The court also noted that the Banking Regulation Act mandates banks to ensure that unused cheque leaves are surrendered upon account closure, but this does not absolve the drawer from liability under Section 138. The court concluded that holding otherwise would defeat the purpose of the legislation and undermine the credibility of cheque transactions.
Conclusion:
The court found no reason to interfere with the lower court's judgment, affirming that the closure of an account falls under the purview of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Criminal Revision Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The ruling reinforces the broad applicability of Section 138 to various circumstances of cheque dishonor, including account closure, thereby upholding the integrity of cheque transactions in commercial practices.
-
1996 (2) TMI 593
The Supreme Court granted leave and directed that the contempt petition should be disposed of within three months, without hearing the pending appeal.
-
1996 (2) TMI 592
Issues:
1. Maintainability of representative suit without leave of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Validity of the decree and execution based on the High Court's judgment.
3. Application of the principle of res judicata in the case.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Maintainability of representative suit without leave of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Division Bench of the High Court held that objection to the maintainability of the representative suit without the court's permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is valid. The appellant had filed a suit for eviction against a group, claiming they had no authority to stay in the premises. The Sangh, through its members, raised objections stating the suit was a nullity due to lack of following proper procedures. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court decreed it for ejectment. The key contention was whether the suit was representative in nature without formal court permission.
Issue 2: Validity of the decree and execution based on the High Court's judgment
The appellant argued that the suit was not collusive and every member of the Sangh was bound by the decree. The High Court's decision declaring the decree a nullity due to lack of permission for a representative suit was challenged. The Court observed that the Sangh was properly represented by its President, Manager, and a member, who defended the suit for the benefit of all members. The High Court's decree was final after refusal of special leave by the Supreme Court, making it non-collusive and not a nullity.
Issue 3: Application of the principle of res judicata in the case
The principle of res judicata, as per Section 11 of the Code, prevents re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties. Explanation VI to Section 11 states that all persons interested in a right litigated by others are deemed to claim under the litigating party. The Court cited previous judgments to support the application of res judicata in the present case, emphasizing that the Sangh was duly represented in previous proceedings, and objections to the execution of the decree were not valid.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the respondents to vacate the premises within six months. The decree of ejectment was upheld, emphasizing the binding nature of the decree on all members of the Sangh due to the principle of res judicata.
-
1996 (2) TMI 591
Issues:
Review of judgment under O. 47, R. 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure based on discovery of new evidence.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Justice N. Arumugam on 4-8-1994 in S.A. 839 of 1994 was reviewed based on O. 47, R. 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving one's case with acceptable evidence to seek remedy before the Court. The plaintiff's title to the suit property was disputed, and the lower appellate Court had reversed the trial Court's judgment. The judgment emphasized the need for cogent evidence to establish one's case and not rely solely on the shortcomings of the defendant. The Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, citing reasons based on legal principles and lack of sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiff.
The review petition was filed by the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Sudharsana Natchtappah, who argued for a review under O. 47, R. 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner claimed the discovery of new evidence related to the suit property recorded in revenue documents, which could impact the adjudication of the case. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present this new evidence, invoking the procedural law governing reviews based on new and important matter or evidence not previously known to the party seeking review.
To entertain a review under O. 47 of the Code, the Court must identify a mistake or error justifying the review, which could be an error of fact or law. The judgment discussed the legal requirements for a review, emphasizing the need for the new evidence to be relevant and potentially altering the judgment if presented earlier. The Court highlighted the distinction between errors of law and inadvertence, stating that a mere erroneous view on a debatable point of law would not warrant a review.
The judgment referred to previous legal discussions on the concept of error apparent and the power of the Court to rectify mistakes or prevent miscarriage of justice. The petitioner's argument for a review based on the discovery of new evidence was scrutinized based on the legal principles governing reviews under O. 47, R. 1. The Court emphasized the necessity for the new evidence to be diligently pursued and nearly conclusive in nature to warrant a review.
The Court analyzed the petitioner's claim of a new discovery of evidence related to the suit property and found no grounds to support the petitioner's argument for a review. It was concluded that the petitioner did not meet the requirements under O. 47, R. 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure for a review based on new evidence. The petition for review was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.
In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly examined the legal principles governing reviews based on new evidence and emphasized the need for diligence and conclusive new evidence to warrant a review of a previous judgment.
........
|
9911796707
