|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 279 Records
-
1987 (4) TMI 502
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the Managing Director of the respondent Company qualifies as an 'employee' under section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act). This determination is pivotal to deciding the applicability of the ESI Act to the respondent Company, which hinges on the number of employees engaged by the company. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The ESI Act's applicability is contingent upon the definition of 'employee' under section 2(9), which encompasses individuals employed for wages in connection with the work of a factory or establishment. The Act also defines 'principal employer' under section 2(17), which includes the owner or occupier of a factory, among others. The Court examined these definitions to ascertain the status of the Managing Director. The appellant Corporation relied on precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, particularly the case of Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. M/s. Margarine and Refined Oils Co. (P.) Ltd., and Shri Ram Prasad vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, to argue that a Managing Director could hold dual capacities as both a director and an employee. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court emphasized the need to interpret the ESI Act's provisions in light of its overall scheme. It noted that the definition of 'employee' under the ESI Act does not explicitly include managerial staff, distinguishing it from other industrial laws. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Trichur vs. Ramanuja Match Industries, which held that a person cannot simultaneously occupy the roles of employer and employee. The Court rejected the dual capacity argument, emphasizing that the Managing Director, by virtue of their role and responsibilities, falls within the definition of 'principal employer' as per section 2(17) of the ESI Act. The Court found that the dual capacity theory is inconsistent with the ESI Act's scheme. Key Evidence and Findings The Court reviewed the resolution appointing the Managing Director, which granted significant powers typically associated with the Board of Directors, including financial authority and decision-making capabilities. The Articles of Association of the respondent Company further supported the Managing Director's status as part of the employer class, rather than as an employee. Application of Law to Facts The Court applied the definitions and legal principles to the facts, determining that the Managing Director's role and responsibilities align with those of a 'principal employer'. The evidence showed that the Managing Director was entrusted with substantial control and authority over the company's operations, consistent with the role of an employer. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Court considered the appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Shri Ram Prasad, which dealt with the definition of salary under the Income-tax Act. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the ESI Act's framework and objectives require a different analysis, focusing on the nature of the employment relationship rather than tax implications. Conclusions The Court concluded that the Managing Director does not qualify as an 'employee' under section 2(9) of the ESI Act. Consequently, the respondent Company does not meet the threshold of engaging 20 employees, and the ESI Act's provisions do not apply. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court affirmed the principle that a person cannot occupy the dual roles of employer and employee within the same legal framework, as this is a "legal impossibility". The judgment reinforced the interpretation that managerial roles, such as that of a Managing Director, fall within the employer category under the ESI Act. The Court's final determination was to dismiss the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts that the Managing Director is not an employee under the ESI Act. This conclusion underscores the importance of examining the specific legal context and definitions within the ESI Act when determining employment status.
-
1987 (4) TMI 501
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate to pass a remand order without a request from the Police or prosecution.
2. Mandatory physical production of the accused before the Magistrate for remand.
3. Incurability of defects or illegality in remand orders and entitlement to habeas corpus.
4. Amenability of judicial orders under the Criminal Procedure Code to quashing by a writ of certiorari.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue (i): Jurisdiction of Magistrate to pass a remand order without a request from the Police or prosecution.
The court held that a Magistrate has jurisdiction to pass an order of remand even in the absence of a formal written application or request from the Police or prosecution. The relevant statutory provisions, sections 167 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, do not expressly mandate any formal application for remand by the prosecution. The power is conferred and vested in the Magistrate without any such pre-condition. The court emphasized that the custody and liberty of the accused are governed by the authority and sanction of a Court of law beyond the initial twenty-four hours post-arrest. The proposition that the Magistrate's power to remand is contingent upon a request from the investigating agency was rejected as untenable and absurd.
Issue (ii): Mandatory physical production of the accused before the Magistrate for remand.
The court held that while physical production of the accused before the Magistrate is desirable, the failure to do so does not per se vitiate the order of remand if the circumstances for non-production were beyond the control of the prosecution or the Police. The court referred to Article 22(2) of the Constitution and section 167(2)(b) of the Code, emphasizing the legislative mandate for physical production. However, it acknowledged practical difficulties and exceptions, such as the accused being grievously ill or in situations where physical production is impossible. The court cited precedents indicating that the law does not contemplate an impossibility, and non-production due to uncontrollable circumstances does not render the remand illegal.
Issue (iii): Incurability of defects or illegality in remand orders and entitlement to habeas corpus.
The court concluded that the true test for the legality of detention is the status on the date of the hearing. A defect in an earlier remand order is not incurable, and an accused cannot claim a writ of habeas corpus if, on the date of the hearing, they are in custody under a valid order of remand. The court cited several precedents, including Talib Hussain v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, which held that in habeas corpus proceedings, the court must consider the legality of the detention at the time of the hearing. The court dismissed the contention that earlier defects in remand orders cannot be cured by subsequent valid orders.
Issue (iv): Amenability of judicial orders under the Criminal Procedure Code to quashing by a writ of certiorari.
The court held that judicial orders of a criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure are not amenable to quashing by a writ of certiorari. The court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, which established that judicial orders passed by courts of competent jurisdiction are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that such orders can be challenged through the judicial remedies provided by law, such as appeal, revision, or inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, but not through writ proceedings. The court dismissed the writ petition on both grounds of non-maintainability and merits.
Separate Judgments:
M.P. Varma, J.: Agreed with the judgment, emphasizing that judicial orders cannot be assailed through writ processes and must be addressed through prescribed forums under the Code or Articles 132 to 136 of the Constitution.
Ram Nandan Prasad, J.: Concurred with the judgment.
-
1987 (4) TMI 500
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cheques were forged.
2. Whether the plaintiff was negligent and thus disentitled to recover the amount.
3. Whether there was a settlement of accounts precluding the plaintiff from reopening the matter.
4. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
5. Whether the plaintiff was estopped from claiming the amount due to conduct or negligence.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the cheques were forged:
The trial court and the High Court both found that the cheques in question were indeed forged. The second defendant, who was the Chief Accounts Officer of the plaintiff, was found responsible for forging the signatures on 42 cheques, leading to the withdrawal of Rs. 3,26,047.92. This finding was based on the special audit conducted by a firm of Chartered Accountants, which disclosed the misappropriation. The Supreme Court did not propose to reconsider the factual findings of the lower courts on this matter.
2. Whether the plaintiff was negligent and thus disentitled to recover the amount:
The appellant Bank argued that the plaintiff was negligent in not detecting the forged cheques earlier, as the bank had periodically sent pass sheets and half-yearly statements that were not questioned by the plaintiff. The Bank contended that the plaintiff's inaction constituted negligence, which should estop the plaintiff from claiming the amounts. However, the Supreme Court held that mere negligence or inaction on the part of the customer does not constitute a defense for the bank when the cheques are forged. The Court emphasized that the relationship between a bank and its customer is that of a creditor and debtor, and the bank has no authority to pay against a cheque with a forged signature. The bank can only deny payment if it establishes adoption, estoppel, or ratification by the customer.
3. Whether there was a settlement of accounts precluding the plaintiff from reopening the matter:
The appellant Bank argued that there was a settlement of accounts between the parties from time to time, which precluded the plaintiff from reopening the matter and claiming the sums paid under the forged cheques. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the acceptance of periodic statements by the customer without protest does not constitute a settled account that precludes the customer from disputing the entries later. The Court clarified that there is no duty on the part of the customer to examine the passbook and communicate any errors to the bank within a reasonable time.
4. Whether the suit was barred by limitation:
The appellant Bank contended that the suit was barred by limitation. However, the Supreme Court did not find merit in this argument, as the plaintiff discovered the fraud in March 1961 and took immediate action by filing a complaint with the Superintendent of Police and appointing Chartered Accountants to conduct a special audit. The suit was filed in a timely manner after the discovery of the fraud.
5. Whether the plaintiff was estopped from claiming the amount due to conduct or negligence:
The appellant Bank argued that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming the amount due to its conduct or negligence in not detecting the forged cheques earlier. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that estoppel by negligence requires the existence of a duty owed by the customer to the bank, which was not established in this case. The Court held that the customer is not under a duty to inform the bank of fraud committed on him of which he was unaware. Furthermore, mere inaction or failure to discover the fraud within a reasonable time does not constitute a defense for the bank.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, confirming that the cheques were forged and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount claimed. The Court dismissed the appeal with costs, emphasizing that the bank cannot escape liability for paying against forged cheques unless it can establish knowledge or ratification by the customer.
-
1987 (4) TMI 499
Issues:
Grant of bail by High Court, Transfer of trial, Recall of bail order, Allegations of tampering with evidence
Analysis:
Issue 1: Grant of bail by High Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the High Court's order granting bail to respondent No. 1, who was facing trial for murder. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed respondent No. 1 to be taken into custody immediately. The reasons for this decision were articulated in the order due to the multiple bail applications and the judicial process followed.
Issue 2: Transfer of trial
Various applications were filed for the transfer of the trial from one court to another. The High Court refused to transfer the case and also declined to cancel the bail granted to one of the accused. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious trial proceedings and observed that adjournments by the accused delayed the trial process, contrary to the directions given by the court.
Issue 3: Recall of bail order
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court judge for recalling his own order related to the bail application of respondent No. 1. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and the convention of placing subsequent bail applications before the same judge to avoid abuse of the legal process and conflicting orders.
Issue 4: Allegations of tampering with evidence
Serious allegations of tampering with evidence were raised by eyewitnesses against the accused persons. The Court noted that the judge failed to adequately consider these allegations, which are crucial in determining whether bail should be granted. The duty of the court is to ensure that the accused, if released on bail, will not tamper with evidence.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found serious errors in the High Court's decision to grant bail to respondent No. 1. Considering the gravity of the offense, the presence of eyewitnesses, and the allegations of tampering with evidence, the Court concluded that respondent No. 1 should not have been granted bail. The Court directed that respondent No. 1 be taken into custody immediately, emphasizing the importance of a fair and expeditious trial process.
-
1987 (4) TMI 498
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
2. Maintainability of the suit in the absence of statutory notice.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain and try the suit.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Requirement of Statutory Notice Under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
The court examined whether it was obligatory for the plaintiff to give statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Section 164 stipulates that no suit shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the society until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar. The plaintiff argued that the subject matter of the suit, which involved the infringement of the "Black Knight" trademark, did not touch the business of the defendant society. However, the court found that the defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling alcoholic beverages, including whisky, which was within the scope of its bye-laws. Consequently, the court concluded that the statutory notice under Section 164 was indeed required.
Issue 2: Maintainability of the Suit in the Absence of Statutory Notice
Given that the statutory notice under Section 164 was mandatory, the court addressed whether the suit was maintainable in its absence. The plaintiff contended that the infringement action was in the nature of tort and did not require such notice. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 164 applies to all suits touching the business of the society, whether based on contractual liability or tort. Consequently, the failure to serve the statutory notice rendered the suit not maintainable. The court upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge that the suit was liable to be dismissed due to the absence of statutory notice.
Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain and Try the Suit
The court examined whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, given that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 50,000 or less. Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, mandates that suits for infringement of a registered trademark must be filed in a court not inferior to a District Court. The term "District Court" was interpreted in light of Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. The court concluded that for the purposes of Section 105, the High Court, exercising its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, qualifies as a District Court. Therefore, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit irrespective of its pecuniary valuation.
Conclusion:
The court affirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge on all preliminary issues. The plaintiff's failure to serve the statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act rendered the suit not maintainable, leading to its dismissal. Additionally, the High Court was found to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, irrespective of the suit's pecuniary valuation. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's suit was consequently dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.
-
1987 (4) TMI 497
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition at Gwalior.
2. Jurisdiction of the Gwalior Bench based on the cause of action.
3. Interpretation of the Presidential Order dated 28-11-1968.
4. Reconsideration of the decision in Kanti Prasad v. J.N.K.V. Vidyalaya.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Petition at Gwalior:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition at Gwalior, citing the Presidential Order dated 28-11-1968. They argued that the Gwalior Bench only has jurisdiction over cases arising in specific revenue districts, and since the impugned order was passed at Jabalpur and no part of the cause of action arose in Gwalior, the petition should not be maintainable at Gwalior. The petitioner countered this by arguing that the wrong pay fixation adversely affected him while posted at Gwalior, thus part of the cause of action arose there.
2. Jurisdiction of the Gwalior Bench Based on the Cause of Action:
The core issue was whether the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to hear the petition based on the cause of action. The petitioner relied on multiple precedents to argue that the adverse effects of the impugned order at his place of posting (Gwalior) constituted a part of the cause of action, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Gwalior Bench. The court examined the definition of "cause of action" as understood in legal terms and concluded that if any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Gwalior, the Bench would have jurisdiction.
3. Interpretation of the Presidential Order Dated 28-11-1968:
The court analyzed the Presidential Order, which established the jurisdiction of the Gwalior Bench over cases arising in specified revenue districts. The term "cases arising" was interpreted to mean the place where the whole or part of the cause of action arises. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Nasiruddin v. S.T.A. Tribunal, which held that if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the specified areas, the concerned Bench would have jurisdiction. Applying this interpretation, the court held that since part of the cause of action (the adverse effects of the pay fixation) arose at Gwalior, the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction.
4. Reconsideration of the Decision in Kanti Prasad v. J.N.K.V. Vidyalaya:
The court revisited the decision in Kanti Prasad, where it was held that the mere posting of the petitioner at Gwalior did not confer jurisdiction on the Gwalior Bench as the cause of action arose entirely at Jabalpur. The court found this decision to be flawed as it did not consider the adverse effects of the order on the petitioner at his place of posting. The court emphasized that the consequences of an order form part of the cause of action and arise at the place where the consequences are felt. Therefore, Kanti Prasad was overruled, and it was held that the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to entertain cases where part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to entertain the petition as part of the cause of action (the adverse effects of the pay fixation) arose at Gwalior. The preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition was rejected, and the decision in Kanti Prasad was overruled. The case was directed to be placed before the regular Division Bench for further hearing on the admission of the petition.
-
1987 (4) TMI 496
Issues Involved:
1. Examination of the approver under Section 306(4) after tendering pardon.
2. Competence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to examine the approver and commit the case.
3. Necessity of making over the case to another court for examining the approver.
4. Right of the accused to cross-examine the approver during the examination under Section 306(4).
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Examination of the approver under Section 306(4) after tendering pardon.
The court clarified that the examination of the approver under Section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory. The purpose of this examination is to ascertain whether the approver has resiled from his former position and broken the conditions of his pardon. This examination is distinct from any questioning done at the time of tendering pardon, which is for the Magistrate's satisfaction and not a substitute for the mandatory examination under Section 306(4). The court emphasized that such examination is essential irrespective of whether the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session or not.
Issue 2: Competence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to examine the approver and commit the case.
The court held that recording the confession does not disqualify the Chief Judicial Magistrate from examining the approver under Section 306(4) and committing the case under Section 306(5). The act of recording the confession is a judicial act that does not involve the exercise of discretion beyond ascertaining the voluntary nature of the confession and giving requisite warnings. The court concluded that the Chief Judicial Magistrate who recorded the confession can still handle the case for the purpose of committal.
Issue 3: Necessity of making over the case to another court for examining the approver.
The court found no necessity for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to make over the case to another court for examining the approver under Section 306(4). The Chief Judicial Magistrate can examine the approver himself and then commit the case under Section 306(5). The court noted that making over the case to another Magistrate on grounds of 'desirability' or 'embarrassment' is not necessary and would only complicate the process.
Issue 4: Right of the accused to cross-examine the approver during the examination under Section 306(4).
The court clarified that the examination of the approver under Section 306(4) before the Magistrate taking cognizance is not to be treated as evidence to consider the guilt or innocence of the accused. This examination occurs before the process is issued to the accused, and thus, the accused has no right to participate in or cross-examine the approver at that stage. The right to cross-examine the approver arises only during the subsequent trial when the examination is for evidence in the case.
Conclusion:
The court answered the reference by stating:
1. The approver must be examined again under Section 306(4) before committal, despite any prior examination at the time of tendering pardon.
2. Recording the confession does not debar the Chief Judicial Magistrate from examining the approver under Section 306(4) or from committing the case.
3. There is no need for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to make over the case to another Magistrate for examining the approver.
4. During the examination of the approver under Section 306(4), the accused does not have the right to cross-examine the approver.
-
1987 (4) TMI 495
Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 323 IPC.
2. Consideration of evidence and principles for interference with an order of acquittal.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involved an appeal where four appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 323 IPC by the High Court after being acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The High Court's decision was based on a reappraisal of the evidence, leading to a different conclusion than the one reached by the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court analyzed the legality of this interference with the order of acquittal.
2. The prosecution's case revolved around an incident where the appellants allegedly attacked the deceased and two others. The High Court's decision was based on a different interpretation of the evidence compared to the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court emphasized that the grounds for interference with an order of acquittal are limited and must involve manifest illegality or a perverse conclusion. The Court highlighted that if two plausible views exist based on the evidence, the appellate court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal.
3. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's approach in this case was flawed as it did not demonstrate any manifest illegality in the Sessions Judge's decision. The Court reiterated that a mere difference in opinion between the appellate court and the trial court is not sufficient grounds for setting aside an acquittal. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Sessions Judge's decision to acquit the appellants of all charges.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal principles governing appeals against convictions and the limitations on interference with orders of acquittal, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its legal implications.
-
1987 (4) TMI 494
Issues:
Challenge to Sales Tax Officer's order denying exemption under Section 4-A of U. P. Sales Tax Act based on Joint Director's recommendation.
Analysis:
The petition challenged an order by the Sales Tax Officer denying exemption under Section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act to the petitioner. The Sales Tax Officer concluded that the petitioner was not a new unit entitled to exemption. The petitioner argued that the Joint Director of Industries had issued a recommendation in favor of the petitioner's entitlement to exemption, and the Sales Tax Officer should not have disregarded this recommendation. The court noted that the Sales Tax Officer does not have the authority to review or overturn exemptions granted by the State Government or its authorized officers. In a previous case, it was held that the Sales Tax Officer cannot sit in judgment over such exemptions. The court found that the Joint Director, authorized by the State Government, had recommended the petitioner for exemption, and the Sales Tax Officer was bound to act in accordance with this recommendation. Therefore, the Sales Tax Officer's decision to conduct a fresh inquiry instead of following the recommendation was without jurisdiction.
The standing counsel argued that the Joint Director was only authorized to make a recommendation and not to grant an eligibility certificate. However, the court held that the distinction was immaterial because the Government Order mandated that the Sales Tax Officer must act in accordance with the Joint Director's recommendation, whether it was a recommendation or a certificate. The Sales Tax Officer was not permitted to review or reassess the recommendation independently. Consequently, the Sales Tax Officer's order was deemed to be without jurisdiction and was set aside.
As a result of the court's findings, the petition was allowed, and the Sales Tax Officer's order was quashed. The Sales Tax Officer was prohibited from making any assessment regarding the petitioner's eligibility for the period covered by the eligibility certificate. The court also clarified that if any authority had been authorized to review eligibility certificates, this order would not prevent such a review from taking place.
-
1987 (4) TMI 493
Issues:
- Applicability of Section 428 of the CrPC to persons sentenced by Court-Martial under the Army Act, Navy Act, and Air Force Act.
Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against judgments of the High Court rejecting claims of appellants convicted by the General Court-Martial under the Army Act. The High Court granted certificates of fitness under Article 134A of the Constitution, leading to the appeals in the Supreme Court.
2. The central legal question in these appeals is the applicability of Section 428 of the CrPC to individuals sentenced by Court-Martial under the Army Act, with similar implications under the Navy Act and Air Force Act.
3. The High Court decisions were based on the precedent set by an earlier ruling in Ram Labhaya Sharma v. Union of India, where it was held that Section 428 of the CrPC does not apply to convicts sentenced by Court-Martial.
4. Different High Courts have taken conflicting views on this issue. The High Courts of Madras, Delhi, and others have held that the benefit of Section 428 of the CrPC cannot be claimed by those convicted by Court-Martial.
5. However, a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala and a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court took a contrary view, allowing the benefit of Section 428 to individuals sentenced by Court-Martial.
6. An examination of the relevant provisions of the CrPC and the Army Act, Navy Act, and Air Force Act reveals that Section 428 of the CrPC does not apply to persons convicted and sentenced by Court-Martial.
7. Section 5 of the CrPC specifies that in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, special laws like the Army Act prevail, governing the trial, conviction, and sentencing procedures under Court-Martial.
8. Detailed provisions in the Army Act cover all aspects from investigation to execution of sentences, making it clear that the CrPC does not apply to matters under Court-Martial jurisdiction.
9. Section 167 of the Army Act specifies the commencement of imprisonment sentences by Court-Martial, emphasizing that the Act's provisions supersede any potential application of Section 428 of the CrPC.
10. Section 475 of the CrPC further clarifies that the Code does not apply to proceedings before a Court-Martial, reinforcing the exclusion of CrPC provisions in such cases.
11. The wording of Section 428 of the CrPC itself indicates that it does not apply to persons tried and sentenced by Court-Martial, as it pertains to investigations and inquiries not conducted in Court-Martial proceedings.
12. The Supreme Court rejects the narrow interpretation of Section 5 of the CrPC and upholds the view that the Code does not apply to proceedings under special laws like the Army Act.
13. Given the absence of investigations and inquiries as defined in the CrPC in Court-Martial proceedings, the provision for set off in Section 428 of the CrPC is not applicable to individuals sentenced by Court-Martial.
14. The Supreme Court upholds the decisions of the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana, Madras, and Delhi, affirming that the benefit of Section 428 of the CrPC cannot be claimed by those tried and sentenced by Court-Martial.
15. Decisions in favor of applying Section 428 by the High Court of Kerala and Calcutta High Court are deemed incorrect due to a lack of substantive reasoning and misinterpretation of relevant statutes.
16. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed as lacking merit based on the comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and precedents related to the applicability of Section 428 of the CrPC to individuals sentenced by Court-Martial.
-
1987 (4) TMI 492
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the appellant Bank can proceed directly against the guarantor without exhausting remedies against the mortgaged property and principal debtor, and whether the decree is a composite decree personally against the defendants and the mortgaged property.
Summary:
Issue 1: Proceeding against guarantor without exhausting remedies against mortgaged property and principal debtor
The appellant Bank sought execution of a decree against the guarantor, which was resisted on the grounds that the Bank should first proceed against the mortgaged property and principal debtor before the guarantor. The High Court upheld this plea based on a previous decision involving the same appellant Bank. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision in Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Damodar Prasad, arguing that it was not necessary to exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before proceeding against the guarantor. However, the Supreme Court found that since a portion of the decreed amount was covered by the mortgage, the Bank must first proceed against the mortgaged property before the guarantor. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Bank needed to take steps against the mortgaged property before executing against the guarantor.
Issue 2: Nature of the decree as a composite decree
The decree in execution was considered a composite decree, being personally against the defendants, including the respondent, and also against the mortgaged property. The Court did not delve into whether the decree was severable or not but emphasized that since a portion of the decreed amount was under the mortgage, the Bank must first proceed against the mortgaged property before the guarantor. The Court remanded the matter to the High Court after learning that the Bank had taken steps against the mortgaged property and principal debtor, allowing the appellant to plead this case before the High Court for execution against the respondent.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision that the Bank must exhaust remedies against the mortgaged property before proceeding against the guarantor. The matter was remanded to the High Court for further proceedings based on the Bank's actions against the mortgaged property and principal debtor.
-
1987 (4) TMI 491
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 to Government establishments.
2. Obligation of employers to appoint candidates only through Employment Exchanges.
3. Constitutionality of restricting recruitment to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges under Articles 14 and 16.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 to Government Establishments:
The primary issue was whether the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 applies to Government establishments. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had held that the Act does not apply to Government establishments. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this view. The Court interpreted the definitions of "establishment," "establishment in public sector," and "establishment in private sector" provided in Section 2 of the Act. The Court concluded that Government offices are included in the expression "establishment in public sector." The Court emphasized that the Government itself had always understood the provision in this manner, as evident from the instructions issued over three decades. Therefore, the Act applies to Government establishments.
2. Obligation of Employers to Appoint Candidates Only Through Employment Exchanges:
The second issue was whether the Act obliges employers to make appointments exclusively from candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges. The Court referred to Section 4 of the Act, which mandates the notification of vacancies to Employment Exchanges but does not impose any obligation on employers to recruit only through Employment Exchanges. Section 4(4) explicitly states that notifying a vacancy does not compel the employer to recruit any person through the Employment Exchanges. The Court also examined the speech of the Minister of Labour and Employment and Planning during the introduction of the Bill, which clarified that the Bill's intention was only to mandate the notification of vacancies, not to compel recruitment through Employment Exchanges. Consequently, the Court held that the Act does not impose any such obligation on employers.
3. Constitutionality of Restricting Recruitment to Candidates Sponsored by Employment Exchanges under Articles 14 and 16:
The third issue was whether the Government's instructions that restrict recruitment to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the argument that such restrictions could be seen as unreasonable given the vastness and diversity of India. However, the Court emphasized that the objective of public employment is to secure the most suitable candidates while eliminating arbitrariness and favoritism. The Court found that recruitment through Employment Exchanges advances the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 by introducing uniformity and procedural fairness. The Court also noted that other methods, such as advertising vacancies in daily newspapers, are equally ineffective in reaching all potential candidates. Therefore, the Court concluded that the restriction does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 applies to Government establishments and does not obligate employers to recruit exclusively through Employment Exchanges. The Court also ruled that restricting recruitment to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appeals and special leave petitions were disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (4) TMI 490
Issues Involved:
1. Grounds for winding up under Section 433(a), (e), and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Opposition by Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and workers.
3. Financial and operational history of the petitioner-company.
4. Labour disputes and strikes.
5. Previous applications under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. Financial insolvency and commercial viability.
7. Public utility service considerations.
8. Legal principles including res judicata and lifting the corporate veil.
9. Conflict between the Companies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act.
10. Constitutional implications on workers' rights.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Grounds for Winding Up:
The petition for winding up was based on Section 433(a), (e), and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner argued that a special resolution for winding up had been passed, the company was unable to carry on its business, and it was just and equitable for the company to be wound up.
2. Opposition by Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Workers:
The petition was opposed by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and a representative of 1,700 workers. The opposition was grounded on the argument that the petition was mala fide and intended to bypass the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. Financial and Operational History:
The company, initially a part of CIDCO, was incorporated to provide transport services in New Bombay. It continuously ran at a loss due to subsidized routes, government-imposed routes, and concessional passes. The financial statements showed accumulated losses, and the company had significant debts, particularly to CIDCO.
4. Labour Disputes and Strikes:
From 1982 onwards, the company faced labour problems, culminating in an indefinite strike in February 1984. This led to a lock-out and an application under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act for permission to close down, which was initially granted but later overturned by the Industrial Appellate Tribunal and upheld by the High Court.
5. Previous Applications under Section 25-O:
The company made multiple applications under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, citing financial incapacity and labour issues. These applications were rejected, with the appellate authority and the High Court emphasizing the company's role as a public utility service and the hardship that closure would cause to the public.
6. Financial Insolvency and Commercial Viability:
The petitioner argued that the company was commercially insolvent, with liabilities exceeding assets, and no prospect of raising finances or making a profit. However, the court noted that the company had not made any attempts to restart the business or raise funds, and the buses were still in running condition as evidenced by their use by MSRTC.
7. Public Utility Service Considerations:
The court emphasized the company's role as a public utility service and the public interest in its continued operation. The company's monopoly status, state control, and the public's reliance on its services were significant factors against winding up.
8. Legal Principles Including Res Judicata and Lifting the Corporate Veil:
The court held that the petition was not barred by res judicata but noted that the financial incapacity argument had already been decided against the petitioner. The court also considered the principle of lifting the corporate veil, recognizing the company as an instrumentality of the state, which carried out functions of public importance.
9. Conflict Between the Companies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act:
The court acknowledged a conflict between the winding-up provisions of the Companies Act and the closure provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It held that the Industrial Disputes Act, being a beneficial and later legislation, should prevail, thereby preventing the winding up of the company without compliance with Section 25-O.
10. Constitutional Implications on Workers' Rights:
Although raised, the court did not delve into the constitutional arguments regarding workers' rights under Articles 21, 39A, and 41, as the petition was dismissed on other grounds.
Conclusion:
The petition for winding up was dismissed with costs. The court found the petition to be mala fide, aimed at circumventing the Industrial Disputes Act, and contrary to public interest. The financial insolvency argument was rejected, and the court held that the Industrial Disputes Act provisions prevailed over the Companies Act in this context.
-
1987 (4) TMI 489
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to linguistic minority educational institutions.
2. Right of linguistic minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
3. Validity of suspension without prior approval of the Director of Education.
4. Regulatory nature of the provisions under Chapter IV of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to linguistic minority educational institutions:
The core issue was whether linguistic minority educational institutions like the Andhra Education Society are governed by Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The Court observed that the Andhra Education Society, being a linguistic minority educational institution, is protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. However, the Court referenced its decision in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India (1986) and held that the aided minority schools run by the Andhra Education Society and other linguistic minority educational institutions in Delhi are governed by the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 8(2)) of the Act. Therefore, the exercise of the power of the management of such schools to suspend a teacher would necessarily be subject to the requirement of prior approval of the Director of Education under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act.
2. Right of linguistic minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution:
The Court reiterated the principle that while the right to administer educational institutions of their choice is guaranteed under Article 30(1), this right is subject to regulatory measures to ensure proper conditions of service for teachers and to prevent maladministration. The Court referenced a long line of decisions, including In re. the Kerala Education Bill, 1957, and All Saints High School v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, which upheld that regulatory measures do not infringe upon the rights under Article 30(1).
3. Validity of suspension without prior approval of the Director of Education:
The Court held that the impugned order of suspension passed by the management without the prior approval of the Director of Education, as required by Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, was vitiated. The Court noted that the provision is designed to afford some measure of protection to the teachers without interfering with the management's right to take disciplinary action. The Court declared that the order of suspension lapsed due to the lack of response from the Director within the stipulated 15-day period.
4. Regulatory nature of the provisions under Chapter IV of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973:
The Court emphasized that the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Act are regulatory measures intended to ensure proper conditions of service for teachers and to secure a fair procedure in disciplinary actions. These provisions are permissible restrictions designed to prevent maladministration. The Court referenced its decision in Frank Anthony Public School's case, which held that Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is a regulatory provision that does not infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30(1).
Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court declaring that the impugned order of suspension had lapsed due to the absence of the Director's approval within the required period. The Court allowed the management the option to seek prior approval from the Director under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and instructed the Director to deal with such an application in accordance with the principles laid down in Frank Anthony Public School's case. There was no order as to costs.
-
1987 (4) TMI 488
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the recipient of a certain sum of money by mistake is required to return the same with interest or not?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the mistaken credit of Rs. 1,00,000/-?
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the recipient of a certain sum of money by mistake is required to return the same with interest or not?
The plaintiff, a bank, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus interest, alleging that the defendant had received a mistaken credit of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 21-6-1980. The defendant denied the claim, contending that the accounts had been settled and that the claim was not maintainable. The trial court found that the second credit on 21-6-1980 was indeed a "mistaken credit" or "double payment" without any T.T. advice from R.S. Puram Branch, Coimbatore, and held the defendant liable to refund the same with interest. The defendant appealed against this judgment.
The High Court upheld the trial court's finding, stating that a person to whom money is paid by mistake is bound to repay or return it, as per Section 72 of the Contract Act. The court emphasized that the documentary evidence and oral testimonies provided by the plaintiff's witnesses were unimpeachable, establishing that the second credit was a mistake.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the mistaken credit of Rs. 1,00,000/-?
The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim interest on the mistaken credit. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should pay interest as the money belonged to the bank and remained with the defendant for a considerable period. The defendant contended that there was no agreement or trade practice for the payment of interest on such mistaken credits.
The court noted that interest could be awarded for the period prior to the institution of the suit if there was an agreement for payment, usage of trade having the force of law, or under provisions of substantive law. However, in this case, the claim for interest was neither based on usage of trade nor on an agreement. The court also found no basis for awarding interest on the grounds of equity, as there was no pleading warranting the exercise of equity jurisdiction.
The court examined the possibility of awarding interest based on quasi-contract but found it unsustainable, referring to the Privy Council's decision in Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji. The court then considered whether the liability to pay interest arose under the Trusts Act or the Interest Act, 1978. It concluded that the defendant was a "constructive trustee" and liable to pay interest under Section 4 of the Interest Act, 1978, which applies when the obligation to pay money arises by virtue of a fiduciary relationship.
The court determined that the fiduciary duty to restore the amount arose on 21-6-1980, the date of the mistaken credit. It held that the defendant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 21-6-1980 till the date of filing the suit, and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization, as per Section 34 of the C.P.C.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the trial court's decree. The defendant was directed to pay interest on Rs. 1,00,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from 21-6-1980 till the date of filing the suit and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
-
1987 (4) TMI 487
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the insurer is entitled to claim immunity from a decree obtained by the dependents of the victim of a fatal accident due to an exclusion clause in the insurance policy.
2. Interpretation of Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the insurer's liability.
Summary:
Issue 1: Insurer's Immunity Claim
The Supreme Court addressed the conflicting views among various High Courts on whether an insurer can claim immunity from a decree obtained by the dependents of a victim of a fatal accident due to an exclusion clause in the insurance policy. The exclusion clause in question pertains to driving by a named person or persons who are not duly licensed or have been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving license.
The facts of the case were undisputed. The Claims Tribunal and the High Court found that the driver of the truck was grossly negligent by leaving the vehicle with its engine running and the ignition key in the ignition lock, which led to the cleaner taking control and causing the accident. The insured owner was held vicariously liable along with the driver and the cleaner.
The High Court concluded that the insurer could not claim exemption on the ground that the owner had committed a breach of the specified condition because the insured had not permitted the cleaner to drive the vehicle. The negligence was solely on the part of the driver, who was a licensed driver employed by the insured.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 96(2)(b)(ii)
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the insurer's argument in light of Sections 96(1) and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court reviewed various High Court decisions, noting that some courts had exonerated insurers based on the exclusion clause without thoroughly analyzing the statutory provisions.
The Court emphasized that the exclusion clause must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the legislative intent to protect victims of motor vehicle accidents. The Court held that the exclusion clause does not provide absolute immunity to the insurer. The insurer must prove that the insured was guilty of a deliberate breach of the condition. If the insured had done everything within their power to comply with the condition, such as employing a licensed driver, the insurer could not claim immunity.
The Court further stated that the exclusion clause should be "read down" to align with the main purpose of the legislation, which is to ensure compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents. The Court concluded that the High Courts of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh were correct in holding that the exclusion clause does not exonerate the insurer, while the High Courts of Orissa, Patna, and Madhya Pradesh were in error.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurer could not claim immunity based on the exclusion clause, and upheld the judgments of the High Courts of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1987 (4) TMI 486
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Panchayat Samiti has the incidental or consequential power to specify a day for holding a hat or fair u/s 117 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
2. Whether the absence of specific rules u/r 7, 8, and 9 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Samiti Administration) Rules, 1984 limits the Panchayat Samiti's power to specify a day for holding a hat or fair.
Summary:
Issue 1: Incidental or Consequential Power to Specify a Day
The Supreme Court addressed whether the Panchayat Samiti, vested with the authority to grant a licence for holding a hat or fair u/s 117 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, also has the incidental or consequential power to specify a day for such events. The Court held that the power to grant a licence necessarily includes the power to supervise, control, and manage the hat or fair within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that statutory bodies like the Panchayat Samiti enjoy wide 'incidental power,' which includes everything calculated to facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the discharge of their functions. The Court cited authoritative texts and precedents to support this view, including the principle laid down by Lord Selborne in Attorney General v. Great Eastern Railway, which states that incidental or consequential powers should not be narrowly construed as ultra vires unless expressly prohibited.
Issue 2: Absence of Specific Rules
The High Court had previously held that the Panchayat Samiti's power was confined to making provisions for sanitation, health, and hygiene in the market area, as outlined in rr. 7, 8, and 9 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Samiti Administration) Rules, 1984. The Supreme Court found this view manifestly erroneous, stating that the absence of specific rules does not detract from the substantive power conferred by the statute. The Court clarified that the essence and content of the power u/s 117 of the Act is the issuance of a licence for holding a hat or fair, which inherently includes the power to specify a day for such events. The Court concluded that the High Court failed to appreciate that the power to grant a licence necessarily carries with it the power to regulate the manner in which the event is conducted, including specifying the day.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court, holding that the Panchayat Samiti has the incidental or consequential power to specify a day for holding a hat or fair u/s 117 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
-
1987 (4) TMI 485
Issues involved: Interpretation of the word 'and' in the Mines Act, 1952 proviso.
Summary:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interpreting the word 'and' in the Mines Act, 1952 proviso as conjunctive, when it should be read disjunctively. The case involved an open cast mine where the number of employees exceeded 50, triggering the need for a qualified Manager. The Court clarified that any one of the conditions specified in the proviso would make the mine subject to the Act. The legislative intent is to ensure the safety of mine workers. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition.
The Court directed the appellant to find a suitable person for appointment as Manager, with the Department responsible for selecting and deputing the individual. The respondents were to pay the appointed Manager's salary and allowances as determined by the Joint Director of Mines Safety. The Court advised the appellant to consider not prosecuting the respondents for their past failure to appoint a qualified Manager under the Mines Act, 1952.
Judgment: Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 484
Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act I of 1974.
2. Constitution of a Tribunal with unspecified qualifications.
3. Exclusion of legal practitioners from appearing before the Tribunals.
Summary:
1. Vires of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as Amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act I of 1974:
The principal submission was that the 1974 amendment, which took away the right of a landlord to resume possession of the tenanted land where he bona fide required the land for personal cultivation and had no other principal source of income for his own maintenance, was ultra vires, notwithstanding its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule, as it offended the basic structure of the Constitution. The court held that the amendment was a law aimed at agrarian reform, securing the Directive Principles contained in Arts. 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution. The court found no provision of the Amending Act that offends the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. Constitution of a Tribunal with Unspecified Qualifications:
The argument was that the constitution of a Tribunal consisting of persons with unspecified qualifications in place of a court was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature. The court acknowledged the criticisms of the functioning of such Tribunals but held that the mal-functioning of some Tribunals could not vitiate the provision relating to the constitution of the Tribunal and the entrustment of the decision of certain issues to the Tribunal. The court noted that Land Tribunals have functioned well in other states and that the Karnataka Legislature had since amended the Act to provide for an appeal and revision.
3. Exclusion of Legal Practitioners from Appearing Before the Tribunals:
The argument was that Section 48(8), which prohibited legal practitioners from appearing in proceedings before the Tribunals, was repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act. The court adopted the reasoning of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana and directed that Section 48(8) would not be enforced to prevent Advocates from appearing before the Tribunals functioning under the Act. The court did not find it necessary to reopen decisions already rendered by the Tribunals on the ground that legal practitioners were not allowed to appear in those cases.
Conclusion:
All the civil appeals were dismissed without costs. The court upheld the constitutionality of the 1974 Amendment Act, the constitution of the Tribunal, and allowed legal practitioners to appear before the Tribunals.
-
1987 (4) TMI 483
Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the issues related to a civil appeal concerning a Kuri transaction (Chit Fund) where the appellants sought realization of the principal sum with interest and the balance Kuri due from defaulting subscribers. The High Court modified the decree based on the unconscionable interest and unreasonable provisions in the Kuri system.
Details of the Judgment:
Civil Appeal 85/1972:
The appellants filed a suit based on a Kuri transaction, and the respondents, subscribers to the Kuri, defaulted after winning and receiving the Kuri amounts. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, but the High Court modified the decree due to unconscionable interest and unreasonable provisions in the Kuri system. The High Court reduced the amount based on concerns about the terms of the contract, stating that such transactions should not be allowed. The Kerala High Court, in a full Bench decision, upheld the Kuri transactions, stating that the stipulation for recovering the balance amount on default was not penal or unconscionable. The full Bench emphasized that the stipulation should not be considered penal if the debt was due from the debtor on the date of the bond but allowed to be paid in installments.
Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) 2908/75:
In this case, a subscriber challenged the High Court's judgment, arguing against the unconscionable provisions in the Kuri system. The Supreme Court adopted the reasoning of the full Bench decision and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the stipulation for recovering the balance amount on default was not penal or unconscionable.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal 85/1972, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the S.L.P. 2908/75 based on the reasoning of the full Bench decision.
........
|
9911796707
