|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 941 Records
-
2008 (9) TMI 1049
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner, a former director of a company engaged in Collective Investment Schemes, can be held liable for offenses committed by the company after his resignation?
2. Whether the court can quash the criminal complaint and order for discharge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without evidence being recorded in the trial?
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner, a former director of a company involved in Collective Investment Schemes, sought quashing of a criminal complaint against him for offenses committed by the company after his resignation. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) directed the company to refund money collected under the schemes, but the company failed to comply. The complaint implicated the petitioner as a director responsible for the company's conduct. The petitioner contended that he resigned before the offenses occurred, supported by Form 32 filed with the Registrar of Companies and SEBI's admission of his resignation. The court examined Section 27 of the SEBI Act, emphasizing the requirement for a person to be in charge of the company at the time of the offense. Citing precedent, the court concluded that the petitioner's resignation absolved him of liability, leading to the quashing of the complaint against him.
Issue 2:
The court addressed the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings. It highlighted the inherent jurisdiction of the court to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, the court emphasized the need to exercise this power sparingly and only when justified by specific criteria. In this case, considering the petitioner's resignation and supporting evidence, the court found it appropriate to quash the complaint against him. The court's decision to intervene under Section 482 was based on the absence of disclosed offenses and the petitioner's established non-involvement after resignation. Consequently, the criminal complaint and the order for discharge were quashed, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1048
Issues:
1. Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.106 of 2005 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Interpretation of Section 27 of the SEBI Act regarding liability of directors in cases of company offenses.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition seeking the quashing of a criminal complaint and an order dismissing an application for discharge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, a former director of a company engaged in Collective Investment Schemes, was accused of non-compliance with SEBI regulations. The core issue revolved around the petitioner's liability as a director for the company's actions post her resignation. The petitioner argued that she had resigned before the company's alleged offenses, supported by Form 32 and SEBI's admission of her resignation in 1998.
The court delved into the interpretation of Section 27 of the SEBI Act, which deems individuals in charge of a company at the time of an offense as guilty. Citing precedents, the court emphasized the importance of establishing the timing of the offense concerning directorial liability. Notably, the court referenced a case where the absence of directorship during the offense led to quashing the complaint. In this case, the offense was deemed to have arisen post the petitioner's resignation, challenging her culpability as a director.
Considering the petitioner's documentary evidence and SEBI's acknowledgment of her resignation, the court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to justify quashing proceedings when no offense is disclosed or to prevent abuse of the legal process. Ultimately, the court found it unjust to continue proceedings against the petitioner, given the established timeline of events and her lack of involvement post-resignation. Consequently, the criminal complaint and the related order were quashed, bringing closure to the legal dispute.
In conclusion, the judgment exemplifies the judicial scrutiny of directorial liability in corporate offenses under the SEBI Act. It underscores the significance of factual timelines in determining individual culpability and highlights the court's authority to intervene under Section 482 to prevent legal injustice. The detailed analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the legal intricacies involved in the case, ultimately leading to the favorable outcome for the petitioner.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1047
Issues:
Violation of section 8(3) r/w section 68(1) of FR Act, 1973 - Failure to furnish evidentiary proof of utilization of foreign exchange remitted. Appeal for penalty imposed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, involved appeals against a penalty imposed on the individual appellant and the appellant company for not providing evidence of utilizing foreign exchange remitted, contravening section 8(3) r/w section 68(1) of FR Act, 1973. The appellants sought adjournment but later requested disposal on merit. As per FEMA 1999, appeals must be disposed of within 180 days. The Tribunal decided to finalize the appeals on merit after granting full dispensation.
The appellant company claimed to have acquired foreign exchange for training its officials by a Taiwan-based company. They argued that the training was completed within the visa period by working day and night, utilizing the remitted foreign exchange for training, boarding, and lodging expenses. They contended that the impugned order lacked evidence, making it illegal, void, and against natural justice principles. On the contrary, the respondent argued that the appellant company released foreign exchange for training four officials for 45 days but only sent two officials for 14 days, without confirmation of training completion by the Taiwan company. The respondent claimed a clear contravention of FER Act provisions.
The Tribunal noted that foreign exchange was released to the appellant company for training four officials for 30 to 45 days, but only two officials were sent for 14 days, indicating a discrepancy. As the number of officers sent for training and the duration were less than the acquired and remitted foreign exchange, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit. The appellants were given seven days to deposit the penalty amount; otherwise, the Enforcement Directorate could recover it according to the law.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1046
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for failure to furnish evidentiary proof of utilization of foreign exchange.
2. Violation of principle of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
3. Failure to provide evidentiary proof of import or utilization of foreign exchange.
4. Interpretation and application of sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FER Act, 1973.
5. Burden of proof on the person acquiring foreign exchange.
6. Dismissal of appeals due to lack of merit.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange heard appeals against an adjudication order imposing a penalty on the appellants for not providing evidence of utilizing foreign exchange acquired and remitted, contravening sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the FER Act, 1973. The appellants did not take steps to prosecute the appeals initially but later requested disposal on merit. The Tribunal considered the provisions of FEMA 1999 requiring appeals to be disposed of within 180 days and granted full dispensation to hear the appeals.
2. The appellants argued that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of witnesses and wrongly attributing the foreign exchange remitted abroad to the individual appellant, who opened the Letter of Credit (L/C), instead of the actual users of the imports. The Tribunal considered these contentions alongside the respondent's argument that the appellants failed to provide evidence of import or utilization of the foreign exchange as required by law.
3. The respondent contended that although the individual appellant opened the L/C for importing copper scrap, the actual users were different parties, and no evidence was presented to show the proper utilization of the remitted foreign exchange. It was highlighted that the appellants did not inquire about non-shipment of goods or take steps to repatriate the funds transferred through the L/C to the foreign importer, leading to a clear contravention under sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the FER Act, 1973.
4. The Tribunal analyzed sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the FER Act, 1973, emphasizing the legal obligation on individuals acquiring foreign exchange to use it for the intended purpose or surrender it within the specified time. It noted that the burden of proof lies with the person prosecuted for contravention, requiring them to demonstrate the proper use of the foreign exchange. In this case, the appellants failed to provide any evidentiary proof of utilizing the foreign exchange, leading to the presumption that it was not used for the intended purpose.
5. As per section 71(2) of the FER Act, the burden of proof rested on the appellants to show the lawful utilization of the foreign exchange, which they failed to do. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants did not present any material to discharge their statutory burden or rebut the adverse presumption under section 8(4) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld as the appellants could not demonstrate the proper utilization of the foreign exchange.
6. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed for lacking merit, and the appellants were given seven days to deposit the respective penalty amounts. Failure to comply would result in the Enforcement Directorate recovering the penalties in accordance with the law.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1045
Issues:
Violation of provisions of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by selling foreign exchange without permission.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant, B.D. Gupta, was charged with selling foreign exchange to Arun Kumar without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant admitted to selling U.S. $7,000 to $8,000 to Arun Kumar under instruction from M.P. Gupta. Both Arun Kumar and M.P. Gupta corroborated this in their statements. The appellant argued that his confession was made under coercion to avoid arrest and lacked corroboration. However, the tribunal found the confession to be voluntary and supported by evidence, leading to the appellant being held guilty by the Adjudicating Officer.
The legal position under section 8(1) of the FER Act, 1973 was discussed. The appellant's guilt was established through his confession and corroborating statements. The burden of proving coercion in the confession lay with the appellant, which he failed to discharge. The tribunal cited precedents to emphasize that retracted confessions can be accepted if proven voluntary and supported by evidence, which was the case here. The appellant's denial of the exact amount of foreign exchange sold was refuted by the confession and corroborating evidence, leading to the confirmation of charges against him.
Regarding the quantum of penalty, the appellant's financial and health conditions were considered. Being a senior citizen with no income source and suffering from critical ailments, the tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 30,000 to achieve justice. The appellant was directed to pay the reduced penalty within 15 days. The appeal was partly allowed, and failure to pay the penalty would result in recovery by the respondent in accordance with the law.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1044
The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in New Delhi dismissed an appeal against an adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of FER Act, 1973. The appellant failed to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement, leading to the appeal's dismissal. The tribunal had allowed the appellant to deposit 20% of the penalty amount, but non-compliance resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1043
Issues:
Violation of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 - Failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds.
Responsibility of the appellant as Managing Director of the noticee company.
Vicarious liability of the appellant under Section 68 of FER Act, 1973.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty on the appellant for failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds in violation of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. The appellant contested the order, claiming lack of evidence to prove his role in the export business of the noticee company. The appellant argued for quashing the order due to the absence of proof of the requisite ingredients of the Act. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the appellant, as the Managing Director of the noticee company, was responsible for the export proceeds and thus liable under the FER Act, 1973.
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The appellant denied actively managing the export business of the noticee company during his tenure as Managing Director. However, the Tribunal noted that there was insufficient evidence to support this claim, and mere assertions were not enough to disprove the appellant's responsibility. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that a Managing Director is typically in charge of a company and responsible for its business conduct. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of necessary averments in establishing vicarious liability and the need for such allegations to be clearly outlined in the complaint.
Referring to the Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant, the Tribunal found that it clearly charged the appellant with vicarious liability for the company's actions. Despite being aware of his position and the allegations against him, the appellant failed to provide any evidence to refute his responsibility for the export proceeds. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of disclosing internal management arrangements, especially in cases involving potential criminal liability. It was noted that the appellant did not avail himself of the escape route provided in the Act, further strengthening the case for his liability.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that it did not contain any errors and should be maintained. The appeal was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed accordingly. The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of the matter and the appellant's failure to provide necessary disclosures regarding the management of the noticee company, leading to the rejection of his arguments against liability under Section 68 of FER Act, 1973.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1042
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under FEMA and FERA for non-realization of export proceeds.
2. Time limitation for initiating adjudication proceedings under FERA and FEMA.
3. Burden of proof in cases of fraudulently obtained signatures.
4. Obligations of a director in realizing outstanding export proceeds.
5. Interpretation of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973.
6. Standard of reasonableness in efforts to realize export proceeds.
7. Director's responsibility in company transactions.
8. Quantum of penalty for non-compliance with export proceeds regulations.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an appeal against a penalty imposed for contravention of FEMA and FERA provisions due to non-realization of export proceeds. The appellant, a director of the company, was held responsible for the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 2,36,35,851 from exports made by the company in 1997. The appellant argued that his signatures were obtained fraudulently and that he was not involved in the day-to-day business of the company.
2. The appellant raised a defense based on the time limitation for initiating adjudication proceedings under FERA and FEMA. However, the Tribunal found that the proceedings were initiated within the prescribed period as per the relevant Acts, dismissing the appellant's argument regarding the time-barred nature of the proceedings.
3. The burden of proving that the signatures were obtained fraudulently rested on the appellant. Despite claiming mental health issues and fraudulent activities by others, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his assertions, leading to the rejection of his defense on this ground.
4. As a director of the company during the relevant period, the appellant was obligated to take reasonable efforts to realize the outstanding export proceeds. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's resignation after the export transactions did not absolve him of this responsibility, especially considering the substantial amount involved.
5. The judgment delved into the interpretation of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act, 1973, highlighting the obligations and presumptions regarding the realization of export proceeds within the prescribed period. The Tribunal emphasized that the presumption under Section 18(3) is rebuttable, but the appellant failed to prove sincere efforts to repatriate the export proceeds.
6. The standard of reasonableness in efforts to realize export proceeds was discussed, emphasizing that the appellant's lack of demonstrable efforts led to the conclusion that he had not met the prescribed legal duty as an exporter to make reasonable attempts to recover the outstanding dues.
7. The judgment underscored the director's responsibility in company transactions, emphasizing that directors are exclusively empowered to manage company affairs and are responsible for such management. The appellant's claim of being ignorant of the export transactions was refuted based on his role as a director during the relevant period.
8. Finally, the Tribunal upheld the quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant, considering the gravity of the offense and the substantial amount involved. The appellant was directed to deposit the penalty amount within a specified timeframe, failing which the respondent could recover the same in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed based on the findings and analysis presented in the judgment.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1041
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Long period of incarceration as an under-trial prisoner.
3. Applicability of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Request for bail and consolidation of cases.
5. Allegations of fraud and non-bailable offenses.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution:
The petitioner, an under-trial prisoner since August 1998, claimed violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution. He argued that his prolonged detention without trial infringed upon his rights, particularly under Article 21, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty.
2. Long period of incarceration as an under-trial prisoner:
The petitioner had been in jail for over ten years without trial commencement in several cases. He contended that despite being granted bail in some cases, he remained incarcerated due to other pending cases. The petitioner highlighted that in some cases, he had not been produced before the Magistrate, preventing him from applying for bail.
3. Applicability of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioner invoked Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the release of under-trial prisoners who have been detained for a period extending to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment for the alleged offense. The respondents argued that Section 436A, inserted by the Amendment Act of 2005, does not apply retrospectively to the petitioner's case. However, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's prolonged detention and considered granting limited relief.
4. Request for bail and consolidation of cases:
The petitioner sought directions for his release on bail and consolidation of all pending cases in one court. The Court referred to the precedent set in V.K. Sharma v. Union of India, where similar relief was granted. However, the decision in V.K. Sharma was overruled by a three-judge bench in State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal, which held that consolidation of cases and trial in one court is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Allegations of fraud and non-bailable offenses:
The petitioner faced multiple charges under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC, and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondents argued that the petitioner committed systematic fraud, amassing crores of rupees from the public and failing to refund the amounts. They maintained that the petitioner's detention was lawful and necessary given the non-bailable nature of the offenses.
Judgment:
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's prolonged detention and the need for limited relief. It issued the following directions:
1. If the petitioner applies for bail, the appropriate Court will release him on bail on executing a bond to the satisfaction of the Court.
2. If the petitioner is likely to be arrested, the Arresting Officer shall release him on bail on executing a bond to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
3. The relief is granted only for cases where the petitioner is arrested in his capacity as Managing Director/Director of Imperial Forestry Corporation Ltd.
4. The petitioner must assure his presence in court as required.
5. The petitioner can apply for exemption from personal appearance, subject to the Court's terms and conditions.
6. The petitioner must surrender his passport to the police authorities until the final disposal of all cases.
7. The investigating agency may move for cancellation of bail if the petitioner misuses the liberty granted.
8. The directions are issued in special circumstances due to the petitioner's prolonged detention.
The writ petition was partly allowed to the extent indicated above, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1040
The Bombay High Court rejected an appeal regarding a Tribunal's decision that found no mala fide intention in the payment of less duty, thus Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply. No question of law arises. Certified copy of the order is expedited.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1039
Issues involved: Modification of orders seeking waiver of permission to travel abroad in criminal cases, balancing the petitioner's need for travel with the seriousness of the charges and the risk of fleeing.
Judgment Summary:
Issue 1: Modification of orders seeking waiver of permission to travel abroad
The petitions sought modification of orders requiring permission to travel abroad in criminal cases involving the petitioner. The petitioner argued that frequent travel is necessary for providing educational services and advising an institute, highlighting past compliance with travel restrictions. The CBI opposed, citing serious economic offences and the risk of the petitioner fleeing from justice.
Issue 2: Consideration of past court orders
The court considered a previous order waiving travel permission in a similar case, emphasizing the need to ensure the accused's presence while avoiding unnecessary delays. The court acknowledged the gravity of the charges but noted the petitioner's compliance with previous travel permissions.
Issue 3: Decision and modified conditions
The court allowed the petitions, substituting the requirement of court permission with a modified directive. The petitioner must inform the trial court in advance of foreign travel, providing detailed itinerary and contact information. Additionally, the petitioner must notify the court upon return and undertake not to travel during trial dates. The surety bond amount was increased to one crore rupees to address the CBI's concerns, with liberty granted to revoke the order for non-compliance.
Conclusion
The petitions were disposed of with the modified conditions, balancing the petitioner's travel needs with the seriousness of the charges and ensuring compliance with court directives.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1038
Issues Involved: Interpretation of circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs vis-a-vis decisions of the Supreme Court.
Judgment Summary:
Issue 1: The reference was necessitated due to certain observations by a Constitution Bench in a previous case. The Assessee-Respondent argued that a specific paragraph in the Constitution Bench's decision favored their position, emphasizing the binding nature of circulars issued by the Board. The three-Judge Bench agreed with a previous case's view that clarified the invalidation of circulars conflicting with Supreme Court decisions. It was deemed necessary for a bench of similar strength to clarify the position, leading to the reference.
Issue 2: The Union of India contended that the law declared by the Supreme Court is supreme and circulars cannot take precedence over judicial decisions. Conversely, the Assessee argued that once a circular is issued, it binds revenue authorities even if it contradicts Supreme Court rulings. The Court highlighted that circulars are binding on authorities but not on the Assessee, and the judiciary's interpretation of statutes prevails over executive circulars.
Issue 3: While circulars are legally binding on authorities, when the Supreme Court or High Court pronounces on a legal matter, the courts' decisions supersede circulars. The Court emphasized that circulars contrary to statutory provisions hold no legal weight, and it is the judiciary's role to interpret laws, not the Executive's.
Issue 4: Upholding a previous case's clarification on the matter, the Court emphasized the importance of allowing challenges to judicial decisions, rather than solely relying on circulars. Denying the right to appeal would undermine the rule of law and the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions under Article 141 of the Constitution. The reference was answered affirming the correctness of the previous case's view, with appeals by the revenue allowed and those by the Assessee dismissed.
This judgment clarifies the hierarchy between circulars issued by the Board and judicial decisions, affirming the supremacy of the law declared by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. It underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and the right to challenge legal interpretations, ensuring a fair and just adjudication process.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1037
Issues involved: Challenge to judgment of Division Bench of Gauhati High Court dismissing writ appeal, challenge to reinstatement without back wages, violation of principles of natural justice.
Summary:
The Supreme Court heard the appeal challenging the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service without back wages. The Single Judge had directed the reinstatement due to witnesses not being produced for cross-examination, and the Division Bench agreed with this decision. The appellant argued that this decision contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings, while the respondent's counsel claimed it was based on the lack of adherence to natural justice principles.
In the case of Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls and Ors., the Supreme Court directed the disciplinary authority to provide the enquiry report to the appellant for representation but stated that reinstatement and back wages were not automatic when following natural justice principles. Similarly, in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Anr., the Court emphasized the importance of providing the delinquent employee with the enquiry report and outlined the procedure for setting aside an order of punishment.
Based on the above legal principles, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the completion of the enquiry within four months, starting from the show cause notice stage. The respondent was to be reinstated solely for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings, without back wages or service benefits. The Court emphasized that the proceedings should continue from the stage before the issue arose, without automatic reinstatement.
The respondent, who had already retired, expressed disinterest in pursuing further remedy and was advised to consider seeking a change in the termination order to compulsory retirement through appropriate representation to the authorities. The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of the directions provided regarding the disciplinary proceedings and reinstatement without back wages.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1036
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Civil Appeal on facts after condoning the delay. (Citation: 2008 (9) TMI 1036 - SC)
-
2008 (9) TMI 1035
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing petition, substantial questions of law referred for adjudication.
Condonation of Delay: The Court expressed satisfaction with the grounds for condonation of delay in the petition and accordingly allowed the application for condonation of delay.
Substantial Questions of Law: The appeal was admitted, and several substantial questions of law were referred for adjudication. These questions included issues related to the correctness of decisions made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding revenue expenditure, deferred revenue expenditure, donations, disallowances, provision for damaged stock, interest on advances, capital gains treatment, excess price paid for purchases, deduction under section 80HHD, and calculation of interest payable under section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Procedural Directions: The Court directed the filing of the Paper Book within 8 weeks from the date of the order and scheduled the appeal for hearing 12 weeks later. All parties were instructed to act on a xerox signed copy of the order, and urgent certified copies were to be provided upon application and compliance with formalities.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1034
The Bombay High Court rejected the appeal based on a previous judgment in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited v/s. Union of India, stating that reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Asian Paints (India) Limited v/s. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay was misplaced.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1033
Issues involved: Assailing an award passed by Labour Court regarding termination of a workman, negligence of counsel, setting aside the award.
1. The petitioner challenged the award by Labour Court reinstating the workman with full back wages. The dispute arose over the termination of the workman due to unsatisfactory performance. The reference made by the Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT of Delhi questioned the legality of the termination and sought monetary relief and other benefits for the workman. The management's defence was struck off for not filing a written statement, leading to the award in favor of the workman.
2. The petitioner claimed negligence by its counsel, Mr. Pranav Kanti, for failing to defend the case adequately. Despite repeated opportunities, the counsel did not comply with court orders, resulting in the management's defence being struck off. The petitioner made efforts to recover records from the counsel and filed a complaint with the Bar Council of India regarding the mishandling of the case.
3. The petitioner sought relief citing the negligence of its counsel, as per the precedent in Rafiq Vs. Munshilal, emphasizing that a party should not suffer due to the advocate's misconduct. The court acknowledged the petitioner's efforts to rectify the situation and granted the petitioner the opportunity to present its case afresh before the Labour Court.
4. The judgment set aside the previous award and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh decision, directing the court to proceed within six months. The court recognized the petitioner's plight due to counsel negligence and ensured a fair opportunity for the petitioner to defend its case effectively.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1032
Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the respondent by the High Court for the offence under Section 396 IPC.
2. Parameters for dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal.
3. Legal position on the powers of the appellate court in appeals against acquittal.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Acquittal of the Respondent by the High Court for the Offence Under Section 396 IPC:
The appeal challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which set aside the conviction of the respondent for the offence under Section 396 IPC, initially recorded by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. The respondent was sentenced to life imprisonment but was acquitted of the charge under Section 314 IPC. The background of the case involved a dacoity on 9.5.1973, where about 16-17 dacoits committed the crime, resulting in the death of Hiralal and injuries to others. The High Court noted that the trial court overlooked the enmity between the accused and the complainant (PW-2), and the delay in naming the accused in the FIR raised doubts about the prosecution's case. The High Court acquitted the respondent, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of immediate identification of the accused.
2. Parameters for Dealing with an Appeal Against Judgment of Acquittal:
The Supreme Court outlined the parameters for dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. It emphasized that the High Court has full power to reappreciate, review, and reconsider the evidence and reach its own conclusions. However, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused: the presumption of innocence and the reinforcement of this presumption by the trial court's acquittal. The Court referred to several precedents, including Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor, which established that the appellate court should give proper weight to the trial judge's views on witness credibility, the presumption of innocence, and the right of the accused to benefit from any doubt.
3. Legal Position on the Powers of the Appellate Court in Appeals Against Acquittal:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the appellate court has extensive powers to review the evidence and reach its own conclusions. However, it should not interfere with an acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons. The Court cited various judgments, including Prandas v. State and Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which clarified that the appellate court can reverse an acquittal if the trial court's judgment is based on conjectures and hypothesis rather than legal evidence. The Court also highlighted the balance between individual liberty and the need to prevent the acquittal of guilty persons, emphasizing that the appellate court must ensure that justice is served.
Conclusion:
In the present case, the Supreme Court found that although some of the High Court's reasoning was not legally supportable, the ultimate conclusion of acquittal was a possible view. Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, discharging the bail bond executed by the respondent.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1031
Issues Involved:
1. Waiver and Acquiescence
2. Revisional Authority's Consideration
3. Quantum of Damages
4. Possession and Compensation
Summary:
Waiver and Acquiescence:
The petitioner argued that the respondent's failure to issue a legal notice after the expiry of the license period and continued acceptance of monthly compensation indicated a waiver of the right to evict, treating the petitioner as a tenant. The court rejected this argument, stating that the plea of waiver must be expressly pleaded and proved. The leave and license agreement dated 25th March 2003 was conclusive proof of the licensor-licensee relationship u/s 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The court held that the respondent's conduct did not convert the relationship to that of landlord and tenant.
Revisional Authority's Consideration:
The petitioner contended that the revisional authority failed to consider all aspects of the matter. The court found this grievance devoid of merit, noting that the revisional authority upheld the Competent Authority's decision, which was a possible view based on the evidence. The court found no fault with the revisional authority's approach in rejecting the Revision Application.
Quantum of Damages:
The Competent Authority had directed the petitioner to pay damages at Rs.56,000/- per month from 16th January 2005 until handing over possession. The court found this direction erroneous, as the respondent did not call upon the petitioner to vacate the premises immediately after the license period expired and filed the eviction application only on 10th December 2005. Therefore, the court modified the damages to Rs.36,000/- per month from 16th December 2005 and Rs.18,000/- per month from 16th January 2005 to 15th December 2005.
Possession and Compensation:
The court upheld the order directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the suit premises and allowed the respondent to appropriate the security deposit towards arrears of damages. The petitioner was granted protection of possession until 24th October 2008, subject to depositing the entire arrears in court within four weeks and filing an undertaking.
Order:
1. The direction to hand over possession of the suit premises is upheld.
2. Damages are modified to Rs.36,000/- per month from 16th December 2005 and Rs.18,000/- per month from 16th January 2005 to 15th December 2005.
3. The petitioner is entitled to adjustment of amounts already paid.
4. The respondent may pursue other remedies for compensation for furniture and fixtures.
5. The direction to appropriate the security deposit towards arrears is upheld.
6. Petition disposed of with costs.
7. Protection of possession granted until 24th October 2008, subject to conditions.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1030
Issues involved: Interpretation of eligibility for diversification scheme under Section 4-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act.
Summary:
The petitioner established a unit for manufacturing 'Spum line crown cork' in 1986 and later applied for eligibility under diversification scheme to manufacture 'double lip dry blend crown'. However, the eligibility was granted under 'modernisation' scheme instead. The petitioner contended that the manufacturing process and machinery for both products were different, and the raw materials and usage were also distinct. The petitioner's appeal was rejected by the Trade Tax Tribunal, stating that the goods produced using modern technology were not different from the earlier goods. The Tribunal held that for diversification, the production of goods of a different nature is crucial. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the modernization of machinery does not warrant eligibility unless the produced goods are different. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the revision.
........
|
9911796707
