|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 216 Records
-
1988 (9) TMI 369
Issues:
Challenge against dismissal of writ petition regarding excess land holdings under Maharashtra Agricultural Land Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Challenge against dismissal of writ petition
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of the writ petition by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, regarding the excess land holdings. The petitioner contended that his family unit did not hold surplus land within the permissible ceiling area. The sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal declared a portion of the land as surplus, which was upheld by the High Court. The petitioner argued that the tenanted lands should have been excluded from his total holdings.
Issue 2: Tenancy rights under Bombay Tenancy Act
The petitioner claimed that the lands transferred to tenants under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958, were valid and binding. However, the sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejected the claim of tenancy after examining witnesses. The High Court upheld their findings, stating that the tenancy issue fell within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tahsildar as per the Bombay Act, barring the Civil Court's interference.
Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Ceiling Authorities
The petitioner argued that the Ceiling Authorities had no jurisdiction to decide on tenancy matters, as it was the exclusive domain of the Tenancy Tahsildar under the Bombay Act. The High Court held that the Ceiling Authorities could determine the genuineness of tenancy rights to implement the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Act, 1961, in line with the socio-economic objectives specified in the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the transfer to tenants was not bona fide and was done in anticipation of the Ceiling Act. The Court emphasized the need to interpret laws in a complementary manner to avoid contradictions. The application was dismissed, affirming the High Court's order regarding the excess land holdings and the exclusion of tenanted lands from the petitioner's total holdings.
-
1988 (9) TMI 368
Issues Involved:
1. Defect in the framing of charges.
2. Failure to discuss evidence under different heads of charges.
3. Prejudice and failure of justice due to irregular charges.
4. Applicability of Sections 215, 221, and 464 of the CrPC.
5. High Court's error in directing a retrial.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Defect in the framing of charges:
The High Court found that the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge were materially defective. Specifically, the principal accused, Laisal Haque, was charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, alleging a common object to kill Gulam Rabbani and injure others. However, Haque was also charged under Section 302 IPC simpliciter without making it an alternative charge. The High Court deemed this as a fundamental defect that led to a failure of justice.
2. Failure to discuss evidence under different heads of charges:
The High Court observed that the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge was infirm as it did not separately discuss the evidence under different heads of charges. The trial judge failed to specify which accused caused hurt to whom while convicting under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. This lack of detailed analysis contributed to the High Court's decision to order a retrial.
3. Prejudice and failure of justice due to irregular charges:
The High Court noted that the irregular and "rolled up" charges prejudiced the accused, leading to a failure of justice. The charges were vague and indefinite, particularly the use of the term "injure others" without specifying the names of the injured persons. This vagueness was seen as causing serious prejudice to the accused during the trial.
4. Applicability of Sections 215, 221, and 464 of the CrPC:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's view on the defectiveness of the charges. It emphasized that Section 221 of the CrPC, which allows for framing charges when it is doubtful which of several offenses has been committed, applied in this case. The Court highlighted that Section 215 states no error in the charge shall be material unless it misled the accused and caused a failure of justice. Similarly, Section 464 provides that no finding or sentence shall be invalid due to any error in the charge unless it caused a failure of justice. The Supreme Court found no material on record indicating that the accused were misled or that there was a failure of justice.
5. High Court's error in directing a retrial:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for ordering a retrial without examining the merits of the case. It stated that the High Court failed to appreciate that an appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC could not interfere with the acquittal of 26 other accused who were not parties to the appeal. The Supreme Court noted that a retrial would necessitate a de novo trial against all 42 accused, which was not justified without a proper appeal by the State Government against the acquittals.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment and order, and remitted the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits after notice to the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court must consider the appeals properly and not order a retrial unless there was clear evidence of a failure of justice due to the framing of charges.
-
1988 (9) TMI 367
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of an intermediary bank to a refund after paying on a discounted bill when the foreign bank does not exist.
2. The role and obligations of the intermediary bank in the context of an irrevocable letter of credit.
3. The liability of the drawer and indorser of a bill of exchange under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement of an Intermediary Bank to a Refund:
The main issue is whether an intermediary bank, which merely communicated the letters of credit opened by a foreign bank, is entitled to a refund of the amount paid to a person who discounted the bill drawn by the beneficiary, after it is discovered that the foreign bank never existed. The court held that the plaintiff (intermediary bank) acted only as an agent for collection and did not open any letter of credit. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get back the money paid to the first defendant, as the bill of exchange was dishonored due to the non-existence of the foreign bank.
2. Role and Obligations of the Intermediary Bank:
The court referred to the principles governing a letter of credit as stated in Halsbury's Laws of England and the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits. It was emphasized that the plaintiff bank was expressly asked by the foreign bank not to add its confirmation to the letter of credit. The plaintiff merely notified the beneficiary about the letter of credit without giving any assurance or confirmation. The court rejected the contention that there was an implied guarantee by the plaintiff regarding the creditworthiness of the foreign bank. The plaintiff's role was limited to notifying the seller about the letter of credit, and it did not venture to give any express or implied assurance.
3. Liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court noted that the first defendant had discounted the bills of the seller, and the plaintiff had accepted the endorsement and paid the amount to the first defendant. The payment was made based on the discounted bills by a customer of the bank, not solely on the strength of the letter of credit. Under Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the drawer of a bill of exchange is bound to compensate the holder in case of dishonor, provided due notice of dishonor has been given. Similarly, under Section 35, an indorser is liable to compensate the holder for any loss or damage caused by dishonor, provided due notice has been given. The court confirmed that due notice of dishonor had been given to both the first defendant and the 9th defendant (seller). Therefore, the plaintiff, as the holder of the dishonored bill of exchange, is entitled to claim back the amount paid to the first defendant.
Conclusion:
The judgment and decree passed by the trial court were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. The court concluded that the plaintiff bank, acting as an intermediary, is entitled to a refund of the amount paid on the dishonored bill of exchange, as it fulfilled its role without any confirmation or guarantee of the foreign bank's existence. The liability of the drawer and indorser under the Negotiable Instruments Act was also affirmed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 366
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order dated 8th September 1986 under Section 33(2) of FERA.
2. Legality of the order of adjudication dated 20th June 1988 under Section 63 of FERA.
3. Violation of natural justice principles.
4. Applicability of Section 6(4) and 6(5) of FERA.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Entitlement to refund and interest.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the order dated 8th September 1986 under Section 33(2) of FERA:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 8th September 1986 issued by the Assistant Director, Enforcement (FERA), under Section 33(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. The court found that the order was ex-facie illegal and without the authority of law. The amount of Rs. 17,00,057/- was confiscated without issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The court held that Section 33(2) permitted only the requirement of furnishing information, not confiscation. The order was deemed ultra vires and was struck down for lacking the authority of law and for infringing the principles of natural justice.
2. Legality of the order of adjudication dated 20th June 1988 under Section 63 of FERA:
The second impugned order dated 20th June 1988 held the petitioner guilty of charges and imposed penalties and confiscation. The court noted that the main issue was that the FTS forms and A-2 forms were signed by the employees of the petitioner instead of the passengers themselves. The court concluded that this did not infringe any provisions of FERA since the foreign exchange was not misappropriated and was given to bona fide passengers. The court held that the signing of forms by employees was an inconsequential formality and did not amount to a contravention of Section 6(4) or 6(5) of FERA. Consequently, the order of adjudication was deemed illegal and was quashed.
3. Violation of natural justice principles:
The court observed that the order dated 8th September 1986 was passed without issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard, making the order invalid.
4. Applicability of Section 6(4) and 6(5) of FERA:
The court analyzed whether the petitioner's actions constituted a violation of Section 6(4) and 6(5) of FERA. It was concluded that the signing of forms by the petitioner's employees did not breach these sections. The court emphasized that not every procedural infraction leads to a violation of FERA unless it results in substantial harm or defalcation of foreign exchange.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of an appeal under Sections 52 and 54 of FERA. However, the court held that the rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion, not a rule of law. The court decided to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226, as the impugned orders were found to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
6. Entitlement to refund and interest:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the amount confiscated along with interest at 12% per annum. The court rejected the argument that the amount belonged to the passengers, noting that the petitioner had advanced the amounts to the bank for the purchase of foreign exchange.
Conclusion:
Both the impugned orders dated 8th September 1986 and 20th June 1988 were found to be illegal and were struck down. The petitioner was entitled to a refund of the amount along with interest at 12% per annum. The court stayed its order for four weeks to allow the respondents to prefer an appeal.
-
1988 (9) TMI 365
Issues:
1. Admissibility of additional ground in the appeal.
2. Disallowance of deduction claimed for interest on loans.
Analysis:
1. The appellant sought to introduce an additional ground related to the inclusion of a specific sum as income liable for tax. The contention was that the amount written off as income in the profit and loss account did not represent actual income. The Tribunal rejected this application, stating that the matter required factual investigation and could not be decided based on admitted facts at a belated stage in the appeal.
2. The main issue in the appeal was the disallowance of a deduction claimed by the assessee for interest on loans. The assessee argued that the interest amount was not debited to the profit and loss account as negotiations were ongoing with the bank for waiver or reduction of interest. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the deduction, asserting that the bank had effectively written off the amounts, and the assessee had not debited the amount in its accounts despite maintaining it on a mercantile basis. The Commissioner upheld this decision, emphasizing the understanding between the bank and the company regarding interest payments.
3. The Commissioner noted that the bank had not given up its claim for interest, and the assessee's request for waiver or reduction was considered due to adverse circumstances. The Tribunal found that the liability for interest was ascertained based on legal agreements with the bank, not contingent. Citing relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's decision in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction for interest payable to the bank. The Tribunal directed the allowance of the deduction for the interest amount claimed by the assessee.
4. The Tribunal emphasized that maintaining accounts on a mercantile basis was crucial in determining the deductibility of expenses. Referring to precedents and legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim for deduction of interest payable to the bank was valid and should be allowed. The decision favored the assessee, directing the deduction of the interest amount in question.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision in favor of the assessee regarding the deduction claimed for interest on loans.
-
1988 (9) TMI 364
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability and interpretation of procedural provisions under Chapter V of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Validity of searches and seizures conducted without proper authorization under Sections 41 and 42 of the Narcotic Act.
3. Compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 50 regarding the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
4. Compliance with post-arrest procedural requirements under Sections 52 and 57.
5. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility in narcotic cases.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability and Interpretation of Procedural Provisions:
The judgment emphasizes that the procedural provisions in Chapter V of the Narcotic Act, controlled by the word "shall," are generally imperative. However, the word "shall" can be interpreted as directory depending on the legislative intent and the scheme of the Act. The court acknowledges the severe impact of narcotic offenses and the legislature's intent to impose stringent punishments to curb the menace. The provisions of the Narcotic Act take precedence over the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) where applicable, but the Cr.P.C. can supplement the Narcotic Act provisions if not inconsistent.
2. Validity of Searches and Seizures Without Proper Authorization:
The court discusses the powers of entry, search, seizure, and arrest under Sections 41, 42, 43, and 44 of the Narcotic Act. It concludes that only designated officers with proper authorization can conduct searches and arrests. The court highlights the transitional provisions under Section 74, allowing officers to continue exercising powers under the Narcotic Act even after its commencement. The court also notes that searches and seizures conducted without proper authorization are invalid, and compliance with Sections 41 and 42 is mandatory.
3. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions of Section 50:
Section 50(1) requires that a person about to be searched must be informed of their right to be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The court holds that this provision is mandatory and failure to inform the person of this right is fatal to the prosecution case. The rationale is to ensure the authenticity and credibility of the search, and the designated officer must offer this right in the presence of independent witnesses, if possible.
4. Compliance with Post-Arrest Procedural Requirements:
Sections 52 and 57 outline the procedures to be followed after arrest, including informing the person of the grounds of arrest and making a report to the immediate superior officer within 48 hours. The court holds that Sections 52(1) and 57 are mandatory, as they confer valuable rights on the accused and ensure the integrity of the investigation. Non-compliance with these provisions results in the failure of the prosecution case. However, other provisions like Sections 52(2), 52(3), and 55 are considered directory, and non-compliance must be shown to have caused prejudice and failure of justice.
5. Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Credibility:
The court evaluates the evidence and credibility of witnesses in each case. It emphasizes the need for independent and respectable witnesses during searches and the importance of following procedural safeguards. The court finds that in several cases, the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions, associate independent witnesses, and provide credible evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Case-specific Judgments:
Criminal Revision No. 106 of 1987:
The court quashes the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Una, who discharged the accused due to non-compliance with Sections 41 and 42. The court holds that the transitional provisions under Section 74 were not considered, and the search of the house did not require compliance with Section 50. The case is remanded for fresh hearing and framing of charge-sheet.
Criminal Revision No. 121 of 1987:
The court sets aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmur Districts at Nahan, who discharged the accused for lack of proper authorization. The court emphasizes the transitional provisions under Section 74 and remands the case for fresh hearing and framing of charge-sheet.
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1986:
The court acquits the accused Schneider Helmut due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 52(1) and 57, lack of credible witnesses, and the possibility of the charas not belonging to the accused.
Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1986:
The court acquits the accused Gabriel due to weak evidence, non-compliance with mandatory provisions, and lack of independent witnesses.
Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1986:
The court acquits the accused Rudolt Kropf for the narcotic offense due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions and lack of credible evidence. However, the court maintains the conviction under the Foreigners Act but reduces the sentence to imprisonment already undergone.
Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 1988:
The court acquits the accused Om Parkash due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions, lack of credible witnesses, and weak evidence.
Conclusion:
The judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the Narcotic Act to ensure fair trials and prevent wrongful convictions. The court's detailed analysis of each case highlights the necessity of proper authorization, credible evidence, and adherence to mandatory provisions to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
-
1988 (9) TMI 363
Issues Involved:
1. Rights of a defendant whose defence has been struck out under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
2. Whether a defendant can cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and address arguments when their defence has been struck out.
3. Interpretation of analogous provisions and judicial precedents.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Rights of a defendant whose defence has been struck out under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:
The Supreme Court examined the implications of Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which mandates that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay the required rent within the specified time, "the Court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit." The Court noted that this provision is a penalty for non-compliance and should be interpreted strictly.
2. Whether a defendant can cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and address arguments when their defence has been struck out:
The Court discussed whether a tenant whose defence has been struck out can still participate in the proceedings by cross-examining the plaintiff's witnesses and addressing arguments. The Court referred to various judicial precedents and principles, concluding that while the defendant cannot lead their own evidence, they should be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and address arguments to demonstrate the weaknesses in the plaintiff's case. This right is subject to the court's discretion to ensure it does not prejudice the plaintiff.
3. Interpretation of analogous provisions and judicial precedents:
The Court referred to several analogous provisions and judicial precedents to interpret the rights of a tenant whose defence has been struck out:
- West Bengal Act XVII of 1950: The Court noted differences in language and implications between the 1950 Act and the 1956 Act.
- Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules: The Court considered rules that allow a defendant who has not filed a written statement to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and address the court.
- Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.): The Court referred to this rule, which allows a defendant whose defence is struck out to be placed in the same position as if they had not defended, but still permits cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses.
- Judicial Precedents: The Court examined various decisions, including those from the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court, which supported the view that a defendant should be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and address arguments even if their defence is struck out.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that even when a tenant's defence is struck out under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the tenant should generally be entitled to:
- (a) Cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses.
- (b) Address arguments based on the plaintiff's case.
However, the tenant is not entitled to lead any evidence of their own, and the cross-examination should be limited to pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff's case. The Court emphasized that this right is subject to the court's discretion to ensure it does not cause prejudice to the plaintiff.
The appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored before the trial Judge to proceed in accordance with the Supreme Court's conclusions. The costs of the appeal were directed to form part of the costs in the suit and abide by the result thereof.
-
1988 (9) TMI 362
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the non-petitioner company is unable to pay its debts under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Whether the debt claimed by the petitioner bank is bona fide disputed.
3. Whether the petition for winding up is vexatious and intended to exert undue pressure on the non-petitioner company.
4. The status and implications of pending suits in Singapore and Bombay High Courts.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether the non-petitioner company is unable to pay its debts under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
The petitioner bank argued that the non-petitioner company had failed to make payments amounting to Rs. 27,52,334.45 despite statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, rendering the company commercially insolvent and liable to be wound up. The bank cited several cases to support their contention that a company should be wound up if it fails to pay its debts despite notice of demand.
Issue 2: Whether the debt claimed by the petitioner bank is bona fide disputed.
The non-petitioner company disputed the debt, arguing that the cash credit amount was secured with goods of higher value than the claimed amount. For the first letter of credit, the company contended that the liability was disputed and required adjudication, as the goods were not received, and the payment was allegedly made in breach of the letter of credit conditions. Regarding the second letter of credit, the company argued that the liability was contingent and prospective, given the pending suit filed by the shipping company against the bank.
Issue 3: Whether the petition for winding up is vexatious and intended to exert undue pressure on the non-petitioner company.
The non-petitioner company argued that the winding up petition was vexatious and intended to exert undue pressure for the recovery of disputed amounts. The company had offered to liquidate the debt by encashing fixed deposits and selling pledged/hypothecated goods, indicating a bona fide intention to settle the claims.
Issue 4: The status and implications of pending suits in Singapore and Bombay High Courts.
The non-petitioner company highlighted the pending suits in the Singapore and Bombay High Courts, which involved allegations of breach of contract and disputes over the terms of the letters of credit. The court noted that these suits indicated substantial and bona fide disputes regarding the liabilities, which had not been adjudicated.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the debts claimed by the petitioner bank were bona fide disputed and that the non-petitioner company had raised substantial defenses. The court also noted that the company was a running concern, and the secured creditors were not opposing the winding up petition. Given the pending suits and the company's efforts to liquidate the debt, the court found no merit in the winding up petition and dismissed it with no order as to costs. Consequently, the related Company Petition No. 27 of 1987 and other miscellaneous applications were also dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 361
The High Court of Bombay rejected the application regarding the assessee's claim to be treated as an industrial company, directing the ITO to consider whether the flight kitchen activity qualifies the assessee for such classification. The ITO must also take into account relevant decisions, including one from the Kerala High Court, before computing income from the flight kitchen activity.
-
1988 (9) TMI 360
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a charge apprising the appellant of the precise nature and character of the professional misconduct needs to be framed?
2. Whether a finding of guilt and punishment can be inflicted in the absence of an allegation or finding of dishonesty or mens rea?
3. Whether the allegations and the finding of guilt require to be proved beyond reasonable doubt?
4. Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies?
5. Whether an Advocate acting bona fide on oral instructions from someone purporting to act on behalf of his client would be guilty of professional misconduct?
Summary:
Issue 1: Framing of Charge
The Supreme Court emphasized that an appropriate specific charge should have been framed to enable the concerned Advocate to defend himself properly. Even in a departmental proceeding against an employee, a charge is always framed, and an Advocate should expect similar fairness from his professional brethren. The absence of a charge and issues framed led to a virtual denial of a fair opportunity to meet the case of the other side.
Issue 2: Dishonesty or Mens Rea
The Court noted that it was not the complainant's case that the appellant acted with any dishonest motive or lack of probity. The appellant's defense that he acted on the oral instructions of a longstanding client, believing them to be authorized, required consideration. The Disciplinary Committee failed to address whether the appellant acted in good faith or with any oblique or dishonest motive.
Issue 3: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The Court held that disciplinary proceedings against Advocates are quasi-criminal in nature and require the doctrine of benefit of doubt to be applied. The Disciplinary Committee must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before recording a finding of guilt. The Committee did not demonstrate that it adhered to this standard in its findings.
Issue 4: Doctrine of Benefit of Doubt
The Court reiterated that the doctrine of benefit of doubt must guide the Disciplinary Committee in forming an opinion. The Committee should record a finding of guilt only upon being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and it is impermissible to reach a conclusion based on preponderance of evidence or suspicion.
Issue 5: Bona Fide Actions Based on Oral Instructions
The Court considered whether the appellant's actions, based on oral instructions from someone closely connected with the client, constituted professional misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee did not address whether the appellant acted in good faith or whether his actions amounted to negligence, imprudent or unwise acts, or professional misconduct.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Bar Council of India and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. The Bar Council of India was directed to re-examine the case, considering the principles of natural justice, fair play, and the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The Court also directed that the appellant's name should not be mentioned in any reports or publications of the judgment, as the matter is still subjudice.
The appeal was disposed of without any order regarding costs.
-
1988 (9) TMI 359
Issues:
1. Quashing of order refusing to permit disposal of silver bars
2. Quashing of entire criminal proceeding and investigation
Analysis:
1. The application sought to quash an order refusing the petitioners to deal with silver bars released to them by a previous court order. The petitioners, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) firm, were involved in the bullion business. The silver bars were seized by the police during transportation to Delhi for sale. The court initially released the bars with conditions, but the petitioners later sought permission to make ornaments from the bars, which was denied. The petitioners argued that no offense under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against them as the goods were carried under a valid voucher for legitimate business purposes. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 414 and emphasized the lack of evidence to suggest the silver bars were stolen property, ultimately allowing the application to quash the order refusing disposal of the silver bars.
2. The petitioners also sought to quash the entire criminal proceeding and investigation, contending that no case under Section 414 of the Penal Code was established against them. The court considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding quashing proceedings where no offense is constituted. It was highlighted that the police must have reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offense before commencing an investigation. The court noted the absence of any theft case registered in connection with the silver bars and the lack of evidence indicating they were stolen property. Relying on previous judgments, the court concluded that the first information report did not disclose any offense, leading to the decision to quash the entire criminal proceeding and investigation. The court emphasized preventing the abuse of the court's process and securing the ends of justice in reaching this decision.
-
1988 (9) TMI 358
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
2. Nature of the transaction: lease or license.
3. Classification and status of the society and its members.
4. Applicability of the Bombay Rent Act.
5. Interpretation and amendment of the society's by-laws.
6. Impact of previous judgments and legal precedents.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act:
The primary contention was whether the Registrar had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The appellants argued that the transaction was a lease, thus falling under the Bombay Rent Act, which would bar the Registrar's jurisdiction. However, the court held that the dispute was indeed a matter touching the business of the society as it involved the occupation of a flat by a nominal member, which is within the purview of Section 91. The court referenced the decision in O.N. Bhatnagar's case, stating that the society's actions to remove unauthorized occupation align with its business objectives.
2. Nature of the Transaction: Lease or License:
The appellants contended that the agreement was a lease disguised as a license. The court, however, found that the agreement dated January 1, 1964, was a genuine license, not a lease. The court emphasized that the terms of the agreement and the conduct of the parties indicated a license arrangement. The license was renewed periodically and was terminated by a notice on May 21, 1969, making the occupation unauthorized thereafter.
3. Classification and Status of the Society and its Members:
The society was classified as a tenant co-partnership housing society, not a tenant ownership society. The court noted that the society's by-laws initially adopted Form 'B' by mistake, which was later corrected to Form 'A'. The disputant, Smt. Devibai Advani, was deemed a tenant co-partner member, not a tenant owner member. The court held that the society's classification as a tenant co-partnership society was validated by the Registrar's certificate and subsequent amendments to the by-laws.
4. Applicability of the Bombay Rent Act:
The appellants argued that the Bombay Rent Act should apply, barring the Registrar's jurisdiction. However, the court reiterated that since the transaction was a license, not a lease, the Bombay Rent Act's provisions did not apply. The court cited the O.N. Bhatnagar case, which held that disputes involving nominal members and licenses fall under the Cooperative Societies Act, not the Rent Act.
5. Interpretation and Amendment of the Society's By-laws:
The court examined the amendments to the society's by-laws, particularly the correction from Form 'B' to Form 'A'. The court found that the society's intention was always to operate as a tenant co-partnership society, and the erroneous adoption of Form 'B' was rectified in 1949 and 1974. The court dismissed the argument that the disputant's description of herself as an owner affected her status, affirming her as a tenant co-partner member.
6. Impact of Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents:
The court reviewed several precedents, including Sabharwal Brothers v. Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani, Ramesh Himmatlal Shah v. Harsukh Jadhavji Joshi, and Dr. Manohar Ramchandra Sarfare v. The Konkan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The court distinguished these cases based on their facts and reaffirmed the principles laid down in O.N. Bhatnagar's case. The court concluded that the society was a tenant co-partnership society and the transaction was a license, not a lease.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings that the society was a tenant co-partnership society, the transaction was a license, and the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The appellants were granted six months to vacate the premises, subject to furnishing an undertaking.
-
1988 (9) TMI 357
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to the protection of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
2. Justification of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court's holding regarding the extinguishment of the leave and licence agreement upon acquisition by the Central Government.
3. Determination of whether the dispute is a 'dispute touching the business of the society' under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Protection under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act:
The principal question was whether Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), as the successor-in-interest of Esso Eastern Inc., was entitled to the protection of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act. The court found that Esso Eastern Inc. was in occupation of the flat in question as of February 1, 1973, under a subsisting licence, thus acquiring the status of a tenant under Section 15A. The Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974, transferred the tenancy rights to the Central Government, which subsequently vested in HPCL. The court concluded that HPCL, being a successor-in-interest, was entitled to the protection of Section 15A, as Esso Eastern Inc. had acquired the status of a deemed tenant.
2. Justification of the Appellate Court's Holding on Extinguishment of the Licence:
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court held that the leave and licence agreement was purely personal and extinguished upon the acquisition of Esso Eastern Inc. by the Central Government. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Appellate Court failed to give effect to the admissions made by Smt. Nanki M. Malkani, which indicated a subsisting agreement of leave and licence as late as March 24, 1980. The court emphasized that the tenancy rights acquired under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act were transferred to the Central Government and then to HPCL. The court concluded that the findings of the Appellate Court were erroneous and that HPCL was entitled to the protection under Section 15A.
3. Dispute Touching the Business of the Society:
The third issue was whether the claim for ejectment of an occupant of a flat in a cooperative housing society constituted a 'dispute touching the business of the society' under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, as it was already covered by the decision in O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas & Ors., reiterating the principles laid down therein.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court and the proceedings initiated by the Shyam Co-operative Housing Society for the eviction of the petitioners. The court affirmed that HPCL was entitled to the protection of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, and the findings of the Appellate Court were manifestly erroneous. The petition was allowed, and the eviction proceedings were quashed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 356
Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of the Scheme presented by Shri Ashish Puranchand Kamani.
2. Approval of the Workers' Scheme sanctioned by the BIFR.
Summary:
Issue 1: Consideration of the Scheme presented by Shri Ashish Puranchand Kamani
- The applicant's scheme was not presented before BIFR and was submitted only after BIFR's decision on September 6, 1988.
- The Court had given "liberty" to BIFR to consider any alternative scheme but left it to BIFR's "discretion".
- The applicant did not present any scheme within the specified timeframe.
- The applicant's scheme was compared with the Workers' Scheme and found lacking in several areas:
1. It proposed replacing existing machinery with imported second-hand equipment without clarity on timelines or costs.
2. It lacked firm financial commitments from banks or financial institutions.
3. It did not have support or concessions from the Central or State Governments.
4. The workers were not willing to make wage sacrifices or accept deferments under this scheme.
5. There were no commitments from secured creditors.
6. Its feasibility had not been examined by any competent authority.
- The Court found the applicant's scheme to be speculative and lacking concrete financial backing, and thus, refused the applicant's prayer.
Issue 2: Approval of the Workers' Scheme sanctioned by the BIFR
- The Workers' Scheme had been sanctioned by BIFR on September 6, 1988, after extensive hearings and consultations with all stakeholders, including KEU, financial institutions, and government bodies.
- The scheme envisaged starting operations with existing machinery, backed by commitments from nationalized banks, and included tax concessions from the government.
- Workers agreed to significant wage sacrifices and rationalization of staff.
- The scheme was found feasible and viable by experts and had the full backing of IDBI and nationalized banks.
- The Court emphasized the legislative intent of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, which supports the transfer of shares to employees for the revival of sick units.
- The Court stamped the Workers' Scheme with its imprimatur, highlighting that the scheme was in line with the legislative intent and was feasible and economically viable.
- The Court cautioned against any attempts to impede the implementation of the scheme and underscored the importance of the scheme's success for the future of workers in similar situations.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court approved the Workers' Scheme sanctioned by BIFR and rejected the alternative scheme proposed by Shri Ashish Puranchand Kamani due to its speculative nature and lack of concrete financial backing. The Court emphasized the significance of the Workers' Scheme in setting a precedent for the revival of sick industrial units by the workers themselves.
-
1988 (9) TMI 355
Issues involved: The judgment addresses the following four questions related to the deduction of expenses in the computation of total income and the allowance of relief under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Question 1 & 2: The Tribunal allowed a deduction of travelling expenses and expenditure on law costs and stamps for a defunct business in the computation of the assessee's total income. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal both found that these expenses were incurred for protecting the company's assets and in the business interest of the assessee, hence deductible in the total income computation. These findings were not challenged, leading to the rejection of the reference application on these questions.
Question 3: The Tribunal had to determine if the assessee incurred any expenditure for earning income through dividends, specifically in relation to relief under section 80M. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not spend a significant amount for collecting only three dividend warrants, leading to the deletion of the expenditure deducted by the ITO for determining dividend income for section 80M relief. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order on this matter.
Question 4: This question involved the deduction under section 80M on gross dividends as opposed to net dividends. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not incur significant expenses for collecting the dividends, as they were sent to the bank for realization without involving additional expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order on this issue, leading to the rejection of the application.
The judgment concludes that the Tribunal's decisions were justified, and the application is rejected accordingly. The judges agreed on the outcome, and the order was passed in line with the Tribunal's findings.
-
1988 (9) TMI 354
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction given by the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. Allegations of fraud in obtaining the sanction.
3. Whether the respondents impliedly surrendered their earlier tenancy rights.
4. The effect of delay in challenging the sanction on the ground of fraud.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Sanction Given by the Rent Controller:
The appellant contended that the sanction given by the Rent Controller on 26/27.2.76 was fully in accordance with Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and did not suffer from any defect or infirmity. However, the High Court found that the appellant had already let out the premises to the respondents in December 1975, making the statement before the Rent Controller that she would not need the premises for two years from 1.3.76 both "meaningless" and "subversive." The court emphasized that Section 21 envisages the creation of tenancy rights after getting the sanction of the Rent Controller, not post-facto sanction of an already created tenancy. The High Court held that the sanction order was unenforceable as it was vitiated by fraud.
2. Allegations of Fraud in Obtaining the Sanction:
The respondents argued that the appellant had fraudulently suppressed relevant facts from the Rent Controller, thereby obtaining the sanction. The Rent Controller initially found that the oral tenancy had been created in December 1975 and that the sanction was obtained by suppressing true facts. The Rent Control Tribunal, however, held that the respondents had impliedly surrendered their earlier tenancy and failed to act promptly to nullify the sanction on the ground of fraud. The High Court reversed this, stating that the appellant had fraudulently suppressed the fact that the respondents were already in possession. The court cited S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari, emphasizing that the Rent Controller must be vigilant and ensure the landlord's non-requirement for a particular period before granting sanction under Section 21.
3. Whether the Respondents Impliedly Surrendered Their Earlier Tenancy Rights:
The appellant argued that even if the respondents had been inducted into possession under an oral tenancy in December 1975, they must be deemed to have impliedly surrendered their tenancy rights when they agreed to accept limited tenancy rights under the sanction. The High Court rejected this, citing that when a new lease does not pass an interest according to the contract, the acceptance of it will not operate as a surrender of the former lease. The court concluded that the purported new lease was void in law and incapable of affording scope for any surrender of a pre-existing lease.
4. The Effect of Delay in Challenging the Sanction on the Ground of Fraud:
The appellant contended that the respondents had failed to promptly bring the fraud to the notice of the Rent Controller and had availed the benefit of the sanction for the full period of two years, thereby losing their power to avoid the transaction. The High Court, however, held that the delay in challenging the sanction does not cure the order of its voidness if the sanction was obtained by fraud. The court distinguished this case from J.R. Vohra v. Indian Export House Pvt. Ltd., Inder Mohan Lal's case, and Joginder Kumar Butani v. R.P. Oberai, where the delay was a relevant factor but did not involve fraud vitiating the sanction.
Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the sanction granted by the Rent Controller was unenforceable due to fraud. The respondents' earlier tenancy rights were not surrendered, and the delay in challenging the sanction did not validate the fraudulent order. The High Court restored the Rent Controller's order dismissing the Execution Applications.
-
1988 (9) TMI 353
Issues:
1. Allegation of discrimination in awarding a TV serial contract.
2. Compliance with guidelines for submitting TV serial proposals.
3. Fairness and legitimacy of decision-making process by Doordarshan authorities.
4. Challenge of arbitrariness and malafide conduct in awarding the contract.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner alleged discrimination in the awarding of a TV serial contract by Doordarshan. The High Court found no substance in the discrimination claim. The petitioner sought direction to accept his script, but Doordarshan awarded the contract to another party. The Court examined records and acknowledged the submission dates of proposals, concluding that the petitioner's proposal was not found attractive or interesting by Doordarshan authorities.
2. The guidelines for submitting TV serial proposals required specific details like episode breakdown, synopsis, script, and key personnel information. The Court noted that a proposal was considered complete only after all required documents were provided. The petitioner submitted a detailed proposal, but Doordarshan found it lacking in attractiveness compared to other submissions.
3. The Court emphasized the importance of fair play in administrative actions and the need for legitimate and unbiased decision-making by authorities like Doordarshan. It was observed that while fair play is crucial, administrative bodies must have the flexibility to evaluate proposals objectively. The decision-making process was found to be fair, reasonable, and without malice or favoritism.
4. The petitioner challenged the awarding of the contract as arbitrary and mala fide. However, the Court found that Doordarshan's decision was based on the attractiveness and interest level of proposals submitted. Respondent No. 2, who had a successful track record in the industry, was given consideration based on merit. The Court concluded that there was no malice or ill-will in the decision-making process and upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's claims.
In light of the above analysis and legal principles, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court found no grounds for interference in Doordarshan's decision-making process and upheld the legitimacy of awarding the TV serial contract to the successful party.
-
1988 (9) TMI 352
Issues:
1. Review application under section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 16(5)(a) and (b) of the Act regarding the right of a landlord to apply for review.
3. Application for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of the maintainability of a review application under section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act. The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the High Court's decision allowing a non-occupant landlord to file a review application. The Division Bench concluded that such an application was maintainable, leading to the tenant's contention that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 16(5)(b) of the Act.
2. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of Section 16(5)(a) and (b) of the Act concerning a landlord's right to apply for a review. The section allowed a landlord or any other person to seek a review of an allotment or release order. The petitioner argued that a landlord not in physical possession at the time of the order should not be entitled to apply for a review. However, the High Court held that such a landlord could indeed apply for a review.
3. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, agreed with the High Court's interpretation. It emphasized that the section differentiated between a landlord and any other person, with distinct requirements for each. The Court highlighted that the proviso imposing a time limit for the application did not restrict a landlord's right to seek a review. The judgment cited precedent and principles of statutory interpretation to support the conclusion that a landlord, even if not in physical possession, could request a review of an allotment or release order.
4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the tenant's petition, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court affirmed that a landlord, irrespective of physical possession at the time of the order, could exercise the right to seek a review of an allotment or release order. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and legal principles, reinforcing the landlord's entitlement to pursue a review application under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, clarified the interpretation of Section 16(5)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, affirming a landlord's right to apply for a review of an allotment or release order. The Court's detailed analysis emphasized the distinction between a landlord and any other person under the section, ultimately upholding the High Court's decision regarding the maintainability of a review application by a non-occupant landlord.
-
1988 (9) TMI 351
The judgment was passed by the Allahabad High Court in response to revisions filed by the assessee against a Sales Tax Tribunal order regarding interest liability under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1980-81. The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, stating that since the assessment orders were accepted by the assessee and no appeals were filed against them, the dispute regarding interest calculation was not maintainable. The revisions were dismissed, and costs were imposed on the parties. (Citation: 1988 (9) TMI 351 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
-
1988 (9) TMI 350
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether disciplinary action should be stayed pending a criminal trial when both are based on the same set of facts.
Details of the Judgment:
The appellant, an employee at Balihari Colliery, faced disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution for allegedly assaulting a supervising officer. The appellant sought an injunction against the disciplinary action pending the criminal trial. The trial court granted the injunction, which was upheld on appeal. However, the High Court reversed this decision, stating that there is no bar for an employer to proceed with disciplinary action while a criminal case is pending.
The appellant argued that existing legal precedents supported staying disciplinary action until the criminal case concluded. Various cases were cited, including Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen. The appellant urged the court to provide a definitive ruling due to conflicting judicial opinions on the matter.
The Supreme Court highlighted that while some cases support simultaneous proceedings, in certain situations, it may be appropriate to defer disciplinary action until the criminal case is resolved. The court emphasized that each case should be considered individually, and no rigid formula can apply universally. In this specific case, where both actions were based on the same facts, the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, vacated the High Court's order, and reinstated the trial court's injunction. The appellant was awarded costs, and the court refrained from expressing any opinion on the disciplinary enquiry report presented for the first time during the proceedings.
........
|
9911796707
