|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 209 Records
-
1980 (9) TMI 294
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the executing court.
2. Validity of the auction sale.
3. Applicability of res judicata and Section 47 of the CPC.
4. Bona fide purchaser rights under the Transfer of Property Act.
5. Limitation period for filing the suit.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Executing Court:
The principal question was whether the High Court was correct in holding that the execution sale of the land was without jurisdiction and null and void. The decree was obtained from the Small Causes Court, which was competent to execute it but not by attachment and sale of immovable property. The decree was transferred to the Court of the Munsif after the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1954 had come into force, which amended Section 42 of the CPC. The amendment restricted the powers of the transferee court to be co-terminus with the transferor court. Therefore, the Munsif Court had no jurisdiction to order the sale of immovable property, making the sale null and void.
2. Validity of the Auction Sale:
The sale in favor of the decree-holder took place on July 20, 1956, and was confirmed on August 29, 1956. The High Court (majority) held that the auction sale was void as the executing court had no jurisdiction. The sale was conducted under the amended Section 42 of the CPC, which did not permit the transferee court to execute the decree by attachment and sale of immovable property. Hence, the sale was a nullity and non est in the eye of the law.
3. Applicability of Res Judicata and Section 47 of the CPC:
The trial court initially dismissed the suit, holding it barred by res judicata and Section 47 of the CPC. However, the High Court's Full Bench majority held that the sale being void, the issue of res judicata did not arise. The nullity of the sale meant that it could be challenged at any stage, even in collateral proceedings, as per the principle established in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan.
4. Bona Fide Purchaser Rights under the Transfer of Property Act:
The defendants claimed protection under Sections 41 and 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, arguing they were bona fide purchasers for value and had made improvements on the property. The trial court had accepted this, but the High Court found that since the sale itself was void, the rights of bona fide purchasers did not arise. The possession of the purchasers was without title due to the invalidity of the initial sale.
5. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:
The trial court also held that the suit was barred by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. However, the High Court did not uphold this, as the sale being void ab initio meant that the limitation period did not apply in the same manner. The nullity of the sale allowed the challenge to be brought beyond the typical limitation period.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that the execution sale was null and void due to lack of jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The amendment to Section 42 of the CPC by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1954, was pivotal in determining the jurisdiction and validity of the sale.
-
1980 (9) TMI 293
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order.
2. Examination of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Analysis of the impact of the impugned order on the rights of the parties.
4. Review of judicial precedents on the concept of 'interlocutory order'.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order:
The judgment extensively discusses the concept of an 'interlocutory order'. The court refers to several judicial pronouncements, including Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, and V. C. Shukla v. State. It is highlighted that an interlocutory order is one of a purely interim and temporary nature or an order that is a step in aid of the proceeding. The court elucidates that orders affecting the rights of the parties or deciding certain rights cannot be termed as interlocutory. The court concludes that the order under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing attachment and sealing of the flat, is not an interlocutory order as it substantially affects the rights of the parties.
2. Examination of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The judgment notes that the High Court is empowered under its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to upset an impugned order if it is manifestly unjust and untenable in law. The court emphasizes that it cannot remain a passive spectator when an order is unjust. The inherent powers are discretionary and are meant to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
3. Analysis of the impact of the impugned order on the rights of the parties:
The judgment discusses the impact of the impugned order on the rights of both parties. It is noted that an order of attachment and sealing of the flat directly affects the rights of both parties. If the order is implemented, the respondent is handicapped and suffers a loss even if they have a sound case on merits. Conversely, if the Magistrate declines to pass such an order, the applicant's rights are affected if they have a genuine case. The court underscores that such an order is not purely interim or temporary and has significant implications on the rights of the parties involved.
4. Review of judicial precedents on the concept of 'interlocutory order':
The judgment references several judicial precedents to elucidate the concept of 'interlocutory order'. In Amar Nath's case, the Supreme Court held that an order substantially affecting the rights of the parties is not an interlocutory order. In Madhu Limaye's case, it was observed that if every matter short of a final order is treated as interlocutory, the revisional powers of the Sessions Court or the High Court would be rendered nugatory. The court also refers to the ratio in Mathuralal v. Banwarilal, which clarifies that the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of the Code are to be read together, and the Magistrate's satisfaction is subject to judicial scrutiny.
Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that the impugned order directing attachment and sealing of the flat is not an interlocutory order. It substantially affects the rights of the parties and is not purely interim or temporary. The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code allow it to intervene in such cases to prevent injustice. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny in ensuring that the Magistrate's satisfaction is justified and not arbitrary. The rule is discharged, affirming that the impugned order cannot be termed as an interlocutory order by any yardstick.
-
1980 (9) TMI 292
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's finding that there was no accord and satisfaction of the contract. The Court directed the matters in dispute to be referred to arbitration with a retired Chief Justice as the arbitrator. The arbitrator will first determine if there was accord and satisfaction, and if not, will proceed to decide the claim on its merits. The parties will share the arbitrator's fees initially, with the arbitrator deciding the final cost allocation. This order is not a precedent for future disputes. No costs were awarded for the appeal.
-
1980 (9) TMI 291
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a person is entitled to a hearing before an amount is certified as due and recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
2. Whether a judgment inter partes given by a competent court in a previous suit or writ petition will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or writ petition between the same parties where the decision in the earlier suit or writ petition was founded on a view contrary to that expressed by the Supreme Court in a different case.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Entitlement to Hearing Before Certification of Due Amount
The first issue, whether a person is entitled to a hearing before an amount is certified as due and recoverable as arrears of land revenue, was raised by the appellant. The appellant argued that the order of recovery was vitiated as no hearing had been granted before certifying the amount as due. This argument was based on the settled principles of law that even an administrative order involving civil consequences must be made after notice to the affected person and after affording them a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, this issue was not ultimately decided in the judgment as the court focused on the second issue.
Issue 2: Res Judicata and Previous Judgments
The second issue was whether a judgment inter partes given by a competent court in a previous suit or writ petition will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or writ petition between the same parties, especially when the earlier decision was contrary to a subsequent Supreme Court ruling.
The court first noted that in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant, the precise question of entitlement to a hearing before the amount was certified was raised and decided against the appellant. The State argued that this decision should operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit, barring the appellant from re-litigating the same issue.
The appellant countered that the earlier decision should not operate as res judicata because it was contrary to subsequent Supreme Court rulings which held that even administrative orders involving civil consequences require a hearing. The appellant's counsel argued that the earlier decision, being based on an erroneous view of law, should not be considered a valid judgment for res judicata purposes.
The court reviewed various precedents, including:
- Mohan Lal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee (AIR 1953 SC 65): The Supreme Court held that even an erroneous decision on a question of law operates as res judicata between the parties.
- Perumal Nadar v. Ponnu Swami Nadar (AIR 1971 SC 2352): The court reiterated that the correctness of an earlier judgment is irrelevant for res judicata purposes.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mulamchand: It was established that a decision on a question of law, even if later found erroneous, operates as res judicata if it has attained finality.
The court concluded that the principle of res judicata applies irrespective of whether the earlier judgment was erroneous. The correctness of the earlier judgment is irrelevant as long as it has not been reviewed or reversed by a higher court. The court emphasized the importance of the finality of judgments and held that the subsequent declaration of law by the Supreme Court does not affect the operation of an earlier decision as res judicata.
Therefore, the court answered the second question in the affirmative, holding that the subsequent suit filed by the appellant was barred by the principles of res judicata. The judgment under appeal was found to be correctly decided, and the appeal was dismissed.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, and the court did not address the first issue regarding the entitlement to a hearing before certifying an amount as due. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 290
Issues:
Petition for writ of habeas corpus under COFEPOSA - Delay in considering detenu's representations - Alleged infringement of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) - Negligence and callousness by detaining authority - Breach of constitutional imperatives - Release of detenu ordered.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of a detenu detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detenu was arrested pursuant to a detention order issued by the Commissioner and Administration Secretary of the Home Department, Rajasthan. The grounds of detention were served promptly after the arrest, and subsequent events unfolded in the case.
The detenu's brother made a plea for revocation of the detention order, which was more of a complaint against a Customs Officer than a representation against the grounds of detention. This plea was rejected, leading to a meeting of the Advisory Board, which justified the detention. The State Government confirmed the detention following the Board's report.
Subsequently, the detenu made representations to the Central Government and the detaining authority seeking revocation of detention under COFEPOSA. However, these representations were allegedly not considered promptly, with delays in processing and forwarding them. The detaining authority's refusal to forward the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board was also contested.
The petitioner argued that there was an infringement of constitutional safeguards, citing failures to inform the detenu of his right to make representations, delays in considering representations, and refusals to forward representations for review. The counter-affidavit filed by the Additional Director of Prosecution acknowledged delays in processing the detenu's representations.
The judgment highlighted the obligation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution for prompt consideration of detenu's representations in cases of preventive detention. It concluded that there was a breach of these constitutional imperatives due to delays and negligence by the detaining authority. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu based on these grounds.
-
1980 (9) TMI 289
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an executing court has the power to fix the upset price for the sale of property.
2. Whether an executing court has the power to reduce the upset price once fixed.
3. Interpretation of the amendments made to Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Civil Procedure Code by Act 104 of 1976.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether an executing court has the power to fix the upset price for the sale of property:
The contention of the revision petitioner was that the executing court has no power to fix the upset price. This argument was based on the second proviso to Rule 66 (2) (e) of Order XXI, which states that "nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring the court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property." The petitioner argued that this proviso should be interpreted as a prohibition on the court from fixing an upset price. However, the court noted that historically, courts had the discretion to fix an upset price to ensure that properties were not sold at an undervalue, as evidenced by various case laws such as *Srinivasan v. Andhra Bank Ltd., AIR 1949 Mad 398* and *Kuppammal v. Devendra Iyer: (1957)2MLJ134*. The court concluded that the power to fix an upset price was not removed by the second proviso, which only clarified that the court was not obligated to enter its own estimate of the property's value in the sale proclamation.
2. Whether an executing court has the power to reduce the upset price once fixed:
The court examined whether the power to fix an upset price inherently included the power to reduce it. The court referred to the case of *Susila v. Saraswathi Ammal: AIR1970Mad357*, which held that the fixation of an upset price is an administrative action aimed at facilitating the sale and protecting the interests of both the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder. The court emphasized that the executing court's role includes ensuring that the property is sold at a fair value and that the upset price can be adjusted to reflect market conditions. Therefore, the court concluded that the power to fix the upset price also includes the power to reduce it when necessary.
3. Interpretation of the amendments made to Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Civil Procedure Code by Act 104 of 1976:
The court analyzed the amendments brought by Act 104 of 1976, particularly the second proviso to Rule 66 (2) (e). The court noted the legislative intent behind the amendment, which was to ensure that the court did not vouch for the accuracy of any value of the property entered in the sale proclamation. The court referred to the statement of objects and reasons, which indicated that the amendment aimed to prevent mistakes in the estimated value of the property from affecting the sale. The court concluded that the proviso did not prohibit the court from fixing an upset price but rather clarified that the court was not required to provide its own estimate of the property's value in the sale proclamation.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the executing court has the power to fix the upset price for the sale of property and that this power includes the ability to reduce the upset price when necessary. The amendments made to Order XXI, Rule 66 by Act 104 of 1976 did not remove or limit this power. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower court's decision to reduce the upset price for the properties in question. The judgments delivered by Sathiadev, J. in *Kanniayan v. Chidambaram Finance Corporation* and other similar cases were overruled, while the views taken by Ramanujam, J. and Nainar Sundaram, J. were approved.
-
1980 (9) TMI 288
Issues:
Assessment of gross turnover discrepancy, rejection of accounts due to lack of cash memos and separate trading accounts, statutory obligation to issue cash memos, enhancement of disclosed turnover based on previous history.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a partnership firm engaged in the business of dry fruits and ice, where the assessing officer disputed the disclosed gross turnover due to a discrepancy of &8377; 808.52, absence of cash memos, and failure to maintain separate trading accounts for taxable and non-taxable goods. The assessing officer estimated the net turnover at &8377; 1,70,000 after rejecting the accounts.
2. Upon appeal, the appellate authority upheld the rejection of accounts but reduced the taxable turnover to &8377; 1,67,000. Subsequently, in revision, the Additional Judge confirmed the rejection of accounts citing the absence of cash memos and separate trading accounts. The Additional Judge also upheld the quantum of taxable turnover determined in the appeal, considering the assessee's past record, leading to the filing of the present revision.
3. The assessee argued that the omission to issue cash memos should not warrant account rejection, citing the nature of the business as a petty dealer in Kirana goods. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing the statutory requirement to issue cash memos under Section 8-A (4) for sales over &8377; 5/-, which the assessee failed to comply with, justifying the rejection of accounts.
4. Furthermore, the court highlighted a prior judgment emphasizing the importance of issuing cash memos for sales tax compliance. The court also referenced a similar case to support the decision to confirm the rejection of accounts due to non-compliance with the statutory obligation to issue cash memos.
5. The assessee contended that no enhancement in disclosed turnover was necessary, pointing to the acceptance of turnover in the previous year despite rejected accounts. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the disclosed turnover was based on an estimate, and since the account books were not accepted, the turnover estimation could not be upheld.
6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision, upholding the rejection of accounts and confirming the quantum of taxable turnover determined by the appellate authority. The court also awarded costs to the Commissioner amounting to &8377; 200.
-
1980 (9) TMI 287
Issues Involved:
1. Prima facie case for temporary injunction
2. Legality of octroi duty recovery
3. Enforceability of bilateral agreement (Ex. 5)
4. Applicability of promissory estoppel
5. Delay in challenging the Notification
Detailed Analysis:
1. Prima Facie Case for Temporary Injunction:
The court outlined three conditions for granting a temporary injunction:
(i) A prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, indicating a serious question to be tried.
(ii) The necessity of the court's interference to prevent irreparable injury.
(iii) Comparative mischief or inconvenience from withholding the injunction should be less than that from granting it.
The court emphasized that Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, states that an injunction cannot be granted when an equally efficacious relief is obtainable by other usual modes or proceedings, except in cases of breach of trust.
2. Legality of Octroi Duty Recovery:
The appellant argued that the Municipal Board, Lakheri, was not entitled to recover octroi duty as no Notification under Section 104 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, was published. The court noted that a Notification under Section 104(2) had been published in the Rajasthan Gazette on June 10, 1968, detailing octroi rates, which was authenticated by the Deputy Secretary. Furthermore, the area covered by the factory and mining lease was included within the municipal limits as per the Notification published on December 25, 1975.
The court found that the octroi duty leviable under the 1968 Notification automatically applied to the newly included factory area, rendering the appellant's primary argument invalid.
3. Enforceability of Bilateral Agreement (Ex. 5):
The appellant claimed that the agreement (Ex. 5) with the State Government excluded the factory area from municipal limits and thus from octroi duty. The court held that the agreement was not enforceable because the State Government cannot fetter its future executive or legislative actions. The court cited the principle that contracts opposed to public policy are unlawful, and the State cannot deprive residents of their right to be governed by local bodies like municipalities or gram panchayats.
4. Applicability of Promissory Estoppel:
The appellant did not raise the plea of promissory estoppel in the initial application, which is a mixed question of fact and law requiring specific pleadings. The court noted the absence of any factual foundation for the plea, such as specific acts performed by the appellant relying on the agreement (Ex. 5). The court also discussed the divergence of opinions in Supreme Court decisions regarding promissory estoppel against the State Government. It concluded that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent the Government from discharging its duties under the law, particularly when it involves legislative functions.
5. Delay in Challenging the Notification:
The appellant challenged the validity of the Notification dated December 17, 1975, only in 1979, after a delay of more than three years. The court held that equitable relief requires timely prosecution of claims. The learned District Judge cited Bhagalpur Rolling Mills v. Bhagalpur Electric Supply Company Ltd., stating that undue delay in seeking relief can justify the court's refusal to grant an injunction.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction. The balance of convenience did not favor the appellant, and there was no irreparable loss from withholding the injunction. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 286
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant stay of recovery of tax in a reference pending or where an application has been filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act or section 45(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court to Grant Stay of Recovery of Tax under Section 45(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act
Paragraphs 1-4: Context and Statutory Framework
The primary question is whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to grant a stay of recovery of tax when a reference is pending or an application is filed under section 45(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. Section 45 details the process for referring questions of law from the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court, including the prohibition on staying tax recovery under subsection (7).
Paragraphs 5-6: Arguments and Interpretation of Subsection (7)
Counsel for the dealer argued that subsection (7) does not bar the High Court from granting a stay, as it addresses the Appellate Tribunal. However, the judgment clarifies that subsection (7) is comprehensive and prohibits both the Tribunal and the High Court from staying recovery pending the reference.
Paragraphs 7-8: Powers of the Appellate Tribunal
The Tribunal has the power to grant stay during the pendency of an appeal, as detailed in section 45(5). This power is necessary to prevent the appeal from becoming nugatory.
Paragraphs 9-12: Finality of Tribunal Decisions and Role of the High Court
The decision of the Appellate Tribunal is not final when a reference is made to the High Court. The High Court's opinion is binding, and the Tribunal must conform its decision accordingly. This process ensures that the appeal is not finally disposed of until the High Court's judgment is integrated.
Paragraphs 13-15: Distinction Between Appellate and Referential Jurisdiction
The power to stay is ancillary to appellate jurisdiction but not to referential jurisdiction. The legislature did not confer the power of stay in reference proceedings, as indicated by section 45(7), which mandates payment of tax pending the disposal of the reference.
Paragraphs 16-18: Inherent Powers and Legislative Intent
The inherent power of the High Court to stay recovery is circumscribed by statute. Section 45(7) explicitly limits this power, reflecting the legislature's intent to prevent stays during reference proceedings.
Paragraphs 19-22: Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Prohibition
The precise and unambiguous language of section 45(7) creates a positive prohibition against staying recovery. The High Court cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond what is conferred by statute.
Paragraphs 23-25: Consistency in Interpretation
Interpreting section 45(7) to apply only to references under subsection (1) and not (2) would lead to absurd and inconsistent results. The legislature intended for the prohibition to apply to all references, whether initiated by the Tribunal or directed by the High Court.
Paragraphs 26-27: Causal Relationship Between Subsections (1) and (2)
A reference under subsections (2) and (3) is a consequence of an application under subsection (1). The words "in consequence thereof" in subsection (7) encompass all references made under section 45.
Paragraphs 28-29: Inherent Jurisdiction and Statutory Provisions
Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked where specific statutory provisions exist. Section 45(7) explicitly prohibits the High Court from granting a stay, overriding any inherent power.
Separate Judgment by S.B. Wad, J.:
Paragraphs 32-34: Interpretation of Section 45(7)
Justice Wad disagrees with the majority opinion, arguing that section 45(7) refers only to section 45(1) and not to section 45(2). He contends that judicial interpretation cannot add section 45(2) to section 45(7).
Paragraphs 35-38: Inherent Powers and Legislative Intent
Justice Wad emphasizes that the inherent powers of the High Court under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code allow it to grant stays. He argues that the absence of explicit prohibition in section 45(7) regarding section 45(2) indicates that the High Court retains its power to stay recovery.
Conclusion by Avadh Behari, J.:
Paragraphs 29-31: Summary of Conclusions
The High Court has no power to grant stay pending the disposal of a reference under section 45(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. The matter will be placed before the division bench for further disposal.
Conclusion by S.B. Wad, J.:
Paragraphs 39-41: Affirmative Answer
Justice Wad concludes that the High Court has the power to grant stay under section 45(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, invoking its inherent powers and the absence of explicit prohibition in section 45(7).
Order by the Court:
The application for stay is dismissed, and the matter will be placed before the Division Bench for further proceedings.
-
1980 (9) TMI 285
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the termination of services of the appellants was in violation of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or only compensation.
3. Whether Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala can be regarded as being in continuous service for a period of one year within the meaning of S. 25B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Summary:
1. Violation of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The Labour Court found that the termination of the services of the appellants, except for three workmen (S. C. Goyal, Usha Kumari, and Madhu Bala), was in violation of the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore invalid and inoperative. The appellants claimed the same relief as in Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, where the termination was deemed retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo) and required compliance with S. 25F.
2. Relief of Reinstatement vs. Compensation:
The Labour Court directed payment of compensation instead of reinstatement with full back wages, reasoning that reinstatement would equate the appellants with workmen who had passed the test for permanent absorption. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that non-compliance with S. 25F ordinarily leads to reinstatement with full back wages unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court found no special impediment in awarding reinstatement with full back wages in the present cases, as there was no evidence of undue burden on the employer or dissatisfaction among other employees.
3. Continuous Service for Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala:
The Labour Court treated Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala differently, as they had not been in employment for one year despite working more than 240 days. The Supreme Court clarified that S. 25B(2) deems a workman to be in continuous service for one year if they have worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months, regardless of being employed for a full year. Thus, Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala were entitled to the same relief as other appellants.
Conclusion:
All appeals were allowed, directing reinstatement with full back wages. The salary on reinstatement would be the salary drawn at retrenchment, subject to any revisions, and the period from retrenchment to reinstatement would not count towards seniority. The respondent could manage temporary employees according to the law. There was no order regarding costs.
Separate Judgment:
Pathak, J. concurred with the order proposed by Chinnappa Reddy, emphasizing that the ordinary rule of reinstatement with full back wages applies unless specific facts justify a different relief. He agreed that the amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act by Act No. 36 of 1964 made it sufficient for a workman to have worked 240 days in the preceding twelve months to qualify under S. 25B(2).
-
1980 (9) TMI 284
Issues involved: Violation of natural justice in the High Court's order regarding a revision case under Section 435 read with Section 438 of the CrPC.
Summary:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a High Court order accepting a reference from the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Godavari, regarding a revision case under Section 435 read with Section 438 of the CrPC. The High Court's order set aside the Addl. First Class Magistrate's decision in Cri. M.P. No. 163 of 1971 without giving notice to the respondent or their counsel. The High Court's decision was found to be in violation of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the case to be disposed of within two months after hearing both parties.
The High Court's decision to accept the reference and set aside the Magistrate's order without giving the respondent an opportunity to be heard was deemed contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of allowing both parties to present their arguments before making a decision in a revision case.
The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard, in legal proceedings. The Court's decision to set aside the High Court's order and remand the case for proper consideration with both parties being given an opportunity to present their arguments underscored the fundamental importance of fair and just proceedings in the administration of justice.
-
1980 (9) TMI 283
Issues: Validity of retrospective deletion of a sub-rule in the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1952.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the retrospective deletion of a sub-rule in the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act. The issue revolved around whether Section 4(2) of the Act conferred the State Government the power to make retrospective rules. The Court concluded that no such power was granted to the State Government, rendering the retrospective deletion invalid. The Court emphasized that while the legislature can enact retrospective laws, delegates like the State Government cannot exercise the same power without explicit authorization. The appellant's arguments regarding the rule-making process and legislative approval were dismissed, as they did not indicate a mandate for retrospective rules. The Court clarified that the authority of the State Government under delegation did not extend to making retrospective rules, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.
In summary, the judgment focused on the lack of authority conferred on the State Government to enact retrospective rules under Section 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act. The Court highlighted the distinction between the legislature's power to enact retrospective laws and the limitations on delegates in exercising such authority. The appellant's contentions regarding the rule-making process and legislative approval were deemed insufficient to justify the retrospective deletion of the sub-rule. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the High Court's decision, emphasizing the need for explicit authorization for retrospective rule-making powers.
-
1980 (9) TMI 282
Issues Involved:
1. Definition and nature of 'Prize Chit'
2. Justification for the enactment of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978
3. Constitutionality of the Act under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g)
4. Alleged discrimination under Article 14
5. Legislative competency under Entry 7 of List III
Summary:
1. Definition and Nature of 'Prize Chit':
Section 2(e) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 defines a 'Prize chit' inclusively. The quintessential aspects of a prize chit are that the organizer collects moneys in lump sum or instalments, pursuant to a scheme or arrangement, and he utilizes such moneys primarily for his private appetite and for awarding prizes or refunding the money collected. The apparent tenor may not fully bring out the exploitative import lurking beneath the surface of the words which describe the scheme.
2. Justification for the Enactment of the Act:
The State justified the enactment by highlighting the substantial injury to the community caused by prize chits, which had become a pan-Indian epidemic. The Union of India provided socio-economic data and expert opinions, including a report by Dr. J. S. Raj, which exposed the anti-social impact of such schemes and recommended State intervention. The Study Group report and judicial notice, such as the Gujarat High Court decision in Navjivan Trading Financing Pvt. Ltd., underscored the exploitative nature and financial malpractices associated with prize chits.
3. Constitutionality of the Act under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g):
The Court held that Article 19(6) permits reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g). The twin requirements of Article 19(6) are the reasonableness of the restriction and the compelling need to promote the interest of the general public. The Court found that the total ban on prize chits was justified based on expert opinions and the need to protect the public from unscrupulous racketeers.
4. Alleged Discrimination under Article 14:
The argument that conventional chits and prize chits are substantially similar and that the prohibition of prize chits is discriminatory was rejected. The Court found that the definitions and the Raj Report differentiated between the two schemes, showing different financial features and damaging effects. The exemption of certain categories under Section 11 was also justified as they did not possess the vices of private prize chits and were subject to public control.
5. Legislative Competency under Entry 7 of List III:
The contention that the legislation was aimed at banning lotteries and thus fell within the State List (Entry 34, List II) was rejected. The Court held that the legislation dealt with a special species of contracts with sinister features, including the award of prizes, and was within the competency of Parliament under Entry 7 of List III. The incidental impact on lotteries did not affect the vires of the Act.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed all the Writ Petitions, upholding the constitutionality of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and emphasized the need for dynamic State action to implement the legislation effectively. The possible hardship to bona fide prize chit promoters could be relieved by the Central Government under Section 12.
-
1980 (9) TMI 281
Issues:
Petition for writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution. Allegations of inordinate delay in considering the detenu's representation, violation of detenu's right to independent consideration of representation, failure to inform detenu of right to make representation.
Analysis:
The detenu, an Indian citizen, was detained under the COFEPOSA Act in January 1980. He made a representation on February 20, 1980, which was considered and rejected by the detaining authority on March 26, 1980. The detenu's representation was sent to the State Government through the Superintendent of Jail, but it remained unattended for 22 days in the Inspector-General of Prisons' office. The delay in considering the representation was deemed unreasonable and a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees prompt consideration of representations in cases of preventive detention. The Court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of representations in cases of curtailed liberty, highlighting the negligence and indifference of the State functionaries in this case.
The detenu's counsel raised three contentions: Firstly, the inordinate delay of about 35 days in considering the representation was argued as unreasonable. Secondly, the detenu's right to independent consideration of his representation was allegedly violated as the detaining authority rejected his representation after receiving the Advisory Board's report, indicating possible influence from the Board's views. Thirdly, it was argued that the detenu, being illiterate, was not informed of his right to make a representation, rendering his detention invalid. The Court found merit in the first contention regarding the delay, leading to the quashing of the detention order and the detenu's immediate release.
The Court's decision was based on the violation of the detenu's right to prompt consideration of his representation, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The State's negligence in attending to the detenu's representation, resulting in a delay of 22 days, was deemed unreasonable and a violation of the detenu's rights. The Court emphasized the need for careful and prompt consideration of representations in cases of preventive detention to uphold the safeguards provided by the Constitution and relevant statutes. The writ petition was allowed, the detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released immediately.
-
1980 (9) TMI 280
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the rule of Audi Alteram Partem is applicable under Section 238(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act.
2. Whether the New Delhi Municipal Committee was given an opportunity to make its representation against the allegations leading to its supersession.
3. Whether the failure to observe natural justice vitiates the order of supersession.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Audi Alteram Partem:
The court analyzed whether the rule of Audi Alteram Partem (the right to be heard) is applicable under Section 238(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act. The court referred to various sections of the Punjab Municipal Act, emphasizing the powers, duties, and rights of the Municipal Committee and its members. The court noted that the old distinction between judicial and administrative acts has diminished, and even administrative orders that involve civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The court cited precedents such as State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi and Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, which established that civil consequences cover a broad range of impacts on a citizen's civil life. The court concluded that the status, office, rights, and responsibilities of the Municipal Committee create sufficient interest, and their loss due to supersession entails civil consequences, thus justifying the application of natural justice principles.
2. Opportunity to Make Representation:
The court examined whether the New Delhi Municipal Committee was given an opportunity to make its representation against the allegations leading to its supersession. The court reviewed the four grounds mentioned in the order of supersession:
- First Ground (Mobilisation Advance): The court found that the correspondence regarding the mobilisation advance was between the Government of India and the New Delhi Municipal Committee, not the Delhi Administration, which was the competent authority. There was no indication of any proposed action under Section 238, and the Committee was not put on notice.
- Second Ground (Re-employment of B. K. Mittal): The court noted that a letter from the Delhi Administration reprimanded the Committee but did not provide an opportunity for the Committee to offer its explanation or indicate any further action.
- Third Ground (Minor Penalty for V. P. Sangal): The High Court had already found that the Committee had no opportunity to meet this allegation, and the Supreme Court did not need to reconsider this point.
- Fourth Ground (Creation of Posts): The court found that the correspondence between the Committee and the Delhi Administration regarding the creation of posts did not reveal any proposed action against the Committee.
The court concluded that the Committee was never put on notice of any proposed action under Section 238, and no opportunity was given to explain any fact or circumstance based on the proposed action.
3. Impact of Failure to Observe Natural Justice:
The court addressed the question of whether the failure to observe natural justice matters if the observance would have made no difference. The court emphasized that the non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudicial and that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. The court rejected the argument that the failure to observe natural justice could be excused if the result would have been the same. The court cited various cases, including Ridge v. Baldwin and Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Cooperative Society v. Secretary, to support its view that the denial of natural justice cannot be justified by the inevitability of the outcome.
Conclusion:
The court held that the order of supersession dated February 27, 1980, was vitiated by the failure to observe the principles of natural justice. However, given that the term of the Committee was due to expire shortly, the court did not quash the notification or reinstate the Committee. Instead, the court acknowledged the invalidity of the notification and allowed the appeal, granting costs to the appellant.
-
1980 (9) TMI 279
whether it is under the Preventive Detention Act or the Maintenance of Internal Security Act or the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act or any other law providing for preventive detention?
Held that:- The community has a vital interest in the proper enforcement of its laws, particularly in an area such as conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities in dealing effectively with persons engaged in such smuggling and foreign exchange racketeering by ordering their preventive detention and at the same time, in assuring that the law is not used arbitrarily to suppress the citizen of his right to life and liberty. The Government must, therefore, ensure that the constitutional safeguards of Art. 22(5) read with sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act are fully complied with
Whether there was such unreasonable delay in disposal of the detenu's application for revocation made under sub-s. (1) of s. 11 of the Act as to render his continued detention invalid is, in any event, basically irrelevant. For these reasons, the order of detention passed by the State Government of Maharashtra dated February 12, 1980 detaining Bhalabhai Motiram Patel under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is set aside. Appeal allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 278
Issues:
- Disallowance of deduction towards publicity expenses by the Central Excise authorities.
- Claim for abatement of publicity expenses by the appellants.
- Legal interpretation of post-manufacturing expenses in relation to assessable value.
- Applicability of previous court judgments on similar issues.
- Requirement of actual expenditure proof for claimed deductions.
- Apportionment of publicity expenses between manufacturing and selling activities.
- Calculation methodology for determining assessable value in the case of publicity expenses.
Analysis:
The case involved the disallowance of deduction towards publicity expenses by the Central Excise authorities. The appellants manufactured electric fans and filed price lists claiming deductions for publicity expenses. The appellants argued that publicity expenses are post-manufacturing expenses related to selling activities and should be excluded from the assessable value. They cited various court judgments supporting their claim, emphasizing that post-manufacturing expenses must be excluded from assessable value. The appellants provided an Auditor's certificate to prove the actual expenditure on publicity.
The Collector (Appeals) analyzed the legal precedents and conditions for allowing deductions for publicity expenses. The judgment highlighted that such expenses could be deducted if they were actually incurred and unrelated to manufacturing. Additionally, in the case of an ongoing concern, where manufacturing and selling activities overlap, expenses should be apportioned accordingly. The judgment outlined a formula for calculating the apportionment of publicity expenses towards manufacturing costs.
Regarding specific appeals related to certain price lists, the judgment addressed discrepancies in claimed publicity expenses and actual figures provided by the Auditor. It emphasized the need to calculate publicity expenses accurately, considering both domestic and export sales. The judgment concluded that subject to the prescribed conditions and modifications, the appeals were allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants.
In summary, the judgment delved into the legal intricacies of allowing deductions for publicity expenses in the context of determining assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It emphasized the importance of actual expenditure proof, the relationship between manufacturing and selling activities, and the apportionment of expenses in an ongoing concern scenario. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of relevant court judgments and set forth a methodology for calculating assessable value concerning publicity expenses.
-
1980 (9) TMI 277
Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty and observance of Central Excise formalities; Imposition of penalty on the appellants; Verification process conducted by Central Excise Officers; Compliance with Central Excise laws and maintenance of records; Prosecution launched against the appellants; Examination of evidence and statements by the Judicial Magistrate; Benefit of doubt in favor of the appellants.
In this case, the issue revolved around the alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty and observance of Central Excise formalities by the appellants, leading to the imposition of a penalty. Central Excise Officers found a shortage of specific tins of vegetable product during a physical verification at the factory, which prompted the allegations. The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 on the appellants in addition to demanding duty on the missing goods. The appellants contended that the goods were either present in the packing room or had been removed for re-processing with prior intimation to the Central Excise Sector Officer. They argued that the verification was limited to the EB-4 store room and not conducted thoroughly across all factory sections. The appellants highlighted discrepancies in the verification process and pointed out the confirmation by the Liaison Officer regarding the goods' status.
Moreover, the appellants claimed compliance with Central Excise laws by maintaining a single account in the RG-I as required, rather than a separate EB-4 Register. They also mentioned the prosecution launched against them, which resulted in the Judicial Magistrate exonerating them of the charge. The Board carefully considered the written and oral submissions made by the appellants' representatives during the appeal hearing. The Board noted that the physical verification was limited to the EB-4 godown and acknowledged the appellants' request for re-processing permission, which seemed to have been granted. Statements from inspectors revealed that thorough stock verification was not conducted in all factory sections during the offense booking.
Furthermore, the Board observed the lack of additional evidence to substantiate the alleged clandestine removal. It noted the absence of efforts to record the factory manager's statement or gather evidence from private records or independent sources. The Punjab National Bank's certificate confirmed the issuance of goods to the appellants on the day of the offense. Considering these facts, the Board found that the allegations against the appellants were not proven beyond doubt. Consequently, the Board granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants, setting aside the original order and allowing the appeal.
-
1980 (9) TMI 276
Issues:
1. Whether the goods imported were covered by firm commitments through irrevocable letters of credit.
2. Rationality of the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty imposed.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The central issue in this case was whether the goods imported by the petitioners were covered by firm commitments through irrevocable letters of credit. The Collector of Customs had held that the goods were not covered by such commitments, leading to the rejection of the petitioners' appeals. The petitioners argued that they had entered into contracts supported by sale notes and letters of credit, maintaining that an amendment to the letters of credit did not constitute a fresh commitment. However, the government observed that the amendment, which included an increase in the price of the goods, did indeed signify a new commitment. This change in price and shipment terms indicated a fresh commitment, rendering the import unauthorized under the relevant Public Notice. Consequently, the ban on the import of the goods was deemed applicable, upholding the authorities' decisions.
Issue 2:
Regarding the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty imposed, the petitioners contended that the variations lacked a rational basis, especially when compared to other similar cases adjudicated by the same authority. The government acknowledged that the penalties imposed were excessive and lacked justification, particularly considering the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the penalties were set aside, and a substantial reduction in the fines was deemed necessary. The government provided a detailed tabular statement outlining the original fines set by the Collector and the revised amounts following the government's decision. The orders in appeal were modified accordingly, with the petitioners granted consequential relief.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the crucial issues of firm commitments through letters of credit and the rationality of penalties imposed, providing a comprehensive analysis and decision on each aspect of the case.
-
1980 (9) TMI 275
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of aluminium dross/ash under Central Excise Tariff Item 68.
2. Applicability of Rule 9(1) and 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Imposition of penalties under Rule 173Q.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Aluminium Dross/Ash:
The primary issue was whether aluminium dross/ash is classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants cited the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Limited v. A.K. Bandyopadhyay, which held that dross and skimmings are not "goods" as they are merely refuse or scum resulting from the manufacturing process. The court observed that "goods" must be something that can ordinarily come to the market and be bought and sold, and that the "manufacture" liable to excise duty must bring into existence a new substance known to the market. The Board agreed with the High Court's view, concluding that aluminium dross/ash is not liable to be charged to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Applicability of Rule 9(1) and 9(2):
The appellants argued that the Excise authorities had full opportunity to levy and collect duty on the aluminium dross/ash at the time of manufacture and removal, as the goods were cleared under factory challans and bills, which were available for inspection by the Central Excise Officers. The Board found that there was no intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellants, thus Rule 9(1) was not contravened. Consequently, the penal provisions under Rule 9(2) were not applicable. The demand for duty, if any, would be covered only by Rule 10 and Rule 10A as they existed at that time, but this was immaterial since the goods were not liable to duty.
3. Imposition of Penalties under Rule 173Q:
The Additional Collector had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- in each case under Rule 173Q. The appellants cited the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which stated that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches or where the breach follows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. The Board held that there was no mala fide intention to evade duty, and thus, the imposition of personal penalties was not warranted. The penalties were accordingly set aside.
Conclusion:
The appeals succeeded on all counts. The Board held that aluminium dross/ash is not liable to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, Rule 9(1) was not contravened, and the penalties imposed under Rule 173Q were unwarranted and set aside.
........
|
9911796707
