Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-20-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Ker132
Bhat, J.1. Revision petitioner is the second respondent in RCP 5 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenant as well as the alleged sub-tenant (revision petitioner) under the provisions of Section 11 of Kerala Act, 2 of 1965. Along with the eviction petition, the landlords applied for issue of a commission and a Commissioner was appointed ex parte. The Commissioner submitted a report. It is pointed out that the revision petitioner was present when the Commissioner inspected the premises. The report was filed in 1986. Four years later, the revision petitioner filed I. A. 1313 of 1990 to . set aside the report dated 22-2-1986 and to appoint a fresh Commissioner to undertake the work with the assistance of an expert engineer. The petition was opposed by the landlords and dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that there was no reason to set aside the report and that the petition was highly belated and devoid of bona f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-07-1990
Reported in : AIR1991MP316; 1991(0)MPLJ418
Faizanuddin, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Madhya Pradesh High Court by the defendants has been directed against the orders passed on 29-6-1990 to 11-7-1990 by the learned single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 227 of 1990.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus: The Indian Olympic Association/respondent No. 3, herein, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It consists of various Federations which are affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association. The Management of the Indian Olympic Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.O.A.') is controlled by a duly elected Executive Council in accordance with rules for a term of 4 years. A Special General Meeting may be summoned at any time by the President of I.O.A. at his discretion or it is convened on a written requisition signed by the Presidents and Secretaries of not less than 15 Member-Units within one month from the date of recei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-07-1990
Reported in : AIR1991SC855; [1992]74CompCas482(SC); JT1990(3)SC417; 1990(2)SCALE200; (1990)4SCC406; [1990]3SCR649
..... act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rent control act'). in short, the question is, whether the provisions of the public premises act would override the provisions of the rent control act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments.2. civil appeals ..... rent control act before the rent controller followed by appeal before the rent control tribunal and revision before the high court. after these proceedings have ended they would be followed by proceedings under the public premises act, before the estate officer and the appellate authority. in other words, persons in occupation of public premises would receive greater protection than tenants in premises owned by private persons. it could not be the intention of parliament to confer this dual benefit on persons in occupation of public premises.66. it has also been urged that in section 22 of the rent control act ..... the building; but does not include a room in a hotel or lodging house.38. section 3, which excludes the applicability of the act to certain premises, provide as under:nothing in this act shall apply:(a) to any premises belonging to the government; (b) to any ..... act, parliament devotes its entire consideration to a particular subject. when a general act is subsequently passed, it is logical to presume that parliament has not repealed or modified the former special act unless it appears that the special act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-14-1990
Reported in : (1990)(27)ECC39
1. M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. had filed the above captioned appeals at serial number 1 and 3, and the Collector of Customs, Bombay, had filed the above captioned appeal at serial number 4 and a cross objection at serial number 2. The Bench vide miscellaneous order No.l35/88-C dated 9th December, 1988, in response to the importer M/s.Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. 's request for the change of the name to M/s.Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd. had ordered for the change of the name from M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. to M/s. Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd. The learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the request of the importer.2. Against Order No. S/10-175/83-A dated 20.12.83 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. & Another (now Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd.) had filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the same was registered as Matter No.1838 of 1983. After the filing of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-02-1990
Reported in : 41(1990)DLT347
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) By this petition filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . the petitioners pray for quashing of their prosecution lor offences under sections 276C(1). 277 read with section 278-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') initiated on a criminal complaint having been filed by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle Xiv, New Delhi respondent herein). (2) Petitioner No. I is a partnership firm constituted by petitioners No. 2 to 4 and one other, namely, Smt. V. Panna Lal and as per allegations in the complaint, all of them were in charge and responsible to the firm petitioner No. 1 for the conduct of its business during the period relevant to this case, namely, assessment year 1983-84. The allegation is that in the return filed for the aforesaid assessment year on 28th September 1983, a declaration showing a total loss of Rs. 1,08,167 was filed in the practiced proforma, signed and verified by H. 1. Malhotra, petitioner No. 2 herein, as one of the part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-08-1990
Reported in : AIR1990Ker330
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the respondents/landlords under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short The Act and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the building; but only on the ground of bona fide need. This order was rendered on 31-7-1989. Thereupon the petitioner filed R.C.A.11/89 before the Appellate Authority namely, the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha on 16-10-1989. This Appeal was well within the prescribed time. On 17-10-1989 the petitioner moved an application for of stay execution of the order of eviction. On the request of the respondents, the said application was posted to 21-10-1989 to enable them to file their objection. The hearing was adjourned to 24-10-1989. In the meantime on 26-9-1989, the Notification conferring on the District Judge the powers of Appellate Authority was published in the Gazette. Pursuant to the Notification, the High Court issued an Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-18-1990
Reported in : 1991(51)ELT329(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The controversy in this petition stands concluded by two decisions of this Court in B. K. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. : 1984(18)ELT701(Bom) and in Central India Spg., Wvg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1987 (30) E.L.T. 217. In view of these two decisions, both the counsel state that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.2. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that as regards demand notice dated October 16, 1980, by which the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kalyan demanded a sum of Rs. 4,37,318.22, the order passed by the Asstt. Collector confirming the demand cannot be sustained. The learned counsel urged that the demand notice dated October 16, 1980 was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the duty demanded was short levy for period commencing from May 1, 1980 to September 30, 1980. It was urged that Rule 10 was repealed on November 17, 1980 and was substituted by Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-26-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3164; 1991(2)KarLJ230
K.A. Swami, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 18-8-1983 passed by the learned XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 1884 of 1980. 2. Though the suit in question was originally filed in the Civil Judge's Court, Bangalore City on 26-10-1977 as O.S. No. 770/1977, but on the establishment of City Civil Court, it statutorily stood transferred to the City Civil Court and was numbered as O.S. No. 1884/1980. 2.1. The trial Court (City Civil Court) has decreed the suit in the following terms: 'After contest, it is ordered and decreed that: the defendants-1 and 2 are directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff's within three months from today. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendants-1 and 2 do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,800-00 (Rupees five thousand eight hundred only) together with Court costs and current interest thereon at 6% p.a. from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-18-1990
Reported in : 1990CriLJ796; 1990(1)Crimes397(SC); 1990(48)ELT171(SC); JT1990(1)SC38; (1990)1SCC568; [1990]1SCR98
K.N. Saikia, J.1. Mr. Kubic Dariusz, a Polish national, holding a Polish passport arriving Calcutta by air from Singapore via Bangkok was arrested on 29.4.1989 under Section 104 of the Customs Act, by the officers of the Customs Department attached to Calcutta Airport, on the ground that he was carrying in his possession foreign gold weighing about 70 tolas. On 30.4.1989, he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat who remanded him to jail custody till 15th May, 1989. He was interrogated by Intelligence officer when he made, corrected and signed his statements in English. His application for bail was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. While still in custody, he was served with the impugned detention order dated 16.5.1989 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act along with the grounds of detention. On 24.5.1989 he was granted bail by the Calcutta Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-15-1990
Reported in : 1991LC417(Madras); 1994LC496(Madras); 1992(57)ELT227(Mad)
1. This is a suit filed against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 2,71,754.40 with further interest at 12% p.a. from 17-5-1977 till the date of realisation. 2. The plaint filed proceeds on the allegations that the plaintiff carries on business in the manufacture of lubricating oils and other types of lubricants and that one among the same is a speciality oil manufactured out of duty paid base mineral oil and that this speciality oil was subject to levy of excise duty on the Tariff Item 11-B of the Central Excise Tariff and that during 1-4-1973 to 31-3-1977 the plaintiff removed the speciality oils after payment of requisite excise duty, and that in or about the second week of May 1977 the plaintiff came to know that the speciality oils were exempted from the Central Excise duty on condition that such speciality oils are if manufactured out of duty paid base mineral oil as per the Trade Notice No. 175 of 75 dated 3-10-1975 issued by the defendants and that the said notice provides ...
Tag this Judgment!