Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-10-1999
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2496
1. This appeal and the connected Criminal Appeal No. 78-SB of 1988 'Balwan v. State of Haryana' arise out of same judgment of the learned trial Court and common questions of fact and law are involved therein. So, this order will dispose of both these appeals. 2. For an occurrence which took place on the night intervening 8/9-6-1987 in village Gari Sampla, the appellants in the two appeals along with their co-accused Balwan and Barketu were sent up to face their trial for offences punishable under sections 302/324/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 8-1-1988 acquitted Barketu and Rattan but convicted Balraj for an offence punishable under section 304, Part II and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and Balwan under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide separate order dated 11-1-1988, Balraj-appellant was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and was ordered to pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-18-1999
Reported in : (2000)161CTR(Ker)225; [2000]244ITR702(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court in Original Petition No. 7516 of 1985, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly in the light of the facts mentioned in the enclosure to the reference application, is the Tribunal right,-- (i) in holding' that the assessee is not liable to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ? (ii) in cancelling' the penalty in full, instead of sustaining at least a penalty of Rs. 55,650 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the Tribunal have any material to hold that,-- (i) 'credit for this increased price has been given to the seller in his account' or that- (ii) 'in fact the seller has shown this as her income and has been assessed on this' incl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-01-1999
Reported in : (2000)160CTR(Ker)216; [2000]242ITR29(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court, the following question has been referred for opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in cancelling the February 2, 1988, on a total income of Rs. 6,24,640 including the sum of Rs. 3,24,650 offered by the assessee as income under the head 'Other sources' in the revised return filed on October 16, 1987. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) on the view that the revised return filed by the assessee admitting a higher income could penalty ?'2. The factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows : The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in provision goods, rice, sugar, etc. For the assessment year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-17-1999
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR121
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This civil revision application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16-6-1990 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, below Exhibit 26 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1276 of 1986.2. Application at Exhibit 26 was filed by the plaintiff for amending the plaint by invoking the powers under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C., so as to include theclaim for damages to the tune of Rs. 75,000.00; and in order to grant this relief, the necessary amendments giving the particulars of the damages sustained have been proposed in paragraphs 16-A, 18-A, 24-A and 26-A. All these paragraphs point out the particulars of the damages sustained by the plaintiff: and the prayer clause (3-A) which is proposed gives the final figure of the damages sustained by the plaintiff. This amendment application was rejected by the trial Court on a ground that the cause of action for the suit, inspite of the proposed amendments, is dt. 20-10-1986, and, therefore, on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-31-1999
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR670; 1999CriLJ2194
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Mr. Bagaria for the petitioner-original accused, Dr. Chandrachud for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. Tahilramani for respondent No. 3.2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the Order dated 2nd February 1999, passed by the learned Special Judge for C.B.I., Greater Mumbai in Misc. Application No. 70 of 1999 for closure of prosecution evidence in Special Case No. 6 of 1989. Under the impugned Order, the learned Special Judge (Shri S.R. Mehra) has followed his earlier Order dated 2nd February 1999 in Misc. Application Nos. 1128 of 1998, 25 of 1999 and 26 of 1999 in Case No. 54 of 1988 and has rejected the prayer for closure of the prosecution case and/or acquittal of the petitioner. The prayer was made only on the ground that the charge for the offence punishable under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was framed against the petitioner on 5t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-01-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC273
Palok Basu and Ikram-ul-Bari, JJ.1. The petitioners in each case were highest bidders in the auction which held on different dates relating to a forest produce known as resin, the disposal of which is governed by the provisions contained in the U. P. Resin and other Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act. 1976. According to the facts emerging in all these petitions, the issue raised is whether the petitioners can be asked to pay the difference between the price which they had bid and not paid for resin and the subsequent sale price which was obtained by the Forest Department for the same produce, now being recovered as arrears of land revenue.2. When the writ petitions were filed, a Division Bench of this Court called for counter-affidavits and passed an interim order staying the recovery of the amount through the citations from the petitioners. In response to the notices Issued, the State of U. P. and its officials of the Forest Department have filed a counter-affidavit in some of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-1999
Reported in : AIR2000Bom272; 2000(1)ALLMR475; 2000(2)BomCR547; 2000(3)MhLj856
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner challenges the award made by the sole arbitrator. It appears that the reference was made to the arbitrator in view of the agreement between the parties dated 7th July, 1971. Clause 20 of that agreement provides for reference of the disputes arising between the parties to an arbitrator. The disputes between the parties were regarding the amount of electricity consumption by the petitioner for the period from October, 1991 to May, 1993. The arbitrator has made an award directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four corers).2. The learned Additional Solicitor General Dr. Chandrachud challenges the award on the ground that the dispute that has been decided by the arbitrator was non-arbitrable. In the submission of the learned Counsel, in view of the provisions of section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, there is exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Electrica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-05-1999
Reported in : 1999(1)CTC373; (1999)IIMLJ46
ORDER1. Salem Chit Funds and financiers Association represented by its secretary has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent relating to G.O.Ms.747 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 2.12.1990 inserting the same as Rule 3-A of to the Tamil Nadu Partnership (Registration of firms) Rules and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The members of the association consists of registered partnership firms and individuals, carrying on business in chit funds and financing in Salem District. Most of the members of the association are partnership firms. The partnership Act does not prescribe or provide for the necessity of filing any declaration form by a registered firm, for its continuance after the registration of such firm under section 59 of the act. Under section 61, the firm has to send intimation to the registrar only in cases where it discontinues business at any place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-05-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC534; (2000)1UPLBEC655
Onkareshwar Bhati, J.1. Bymeans of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 19.7.1999. Annexure-26 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to issue an order granting permission to the petitioner to commence medical college as per the scheme submitted without any further inspection or enquiry within the period so fixed by the Court.2. Sri Sudhir Chandra Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Kirit Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, and Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Maninder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 were heard at length and in detail.3. The petitioner is a registered charitable trust. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-19-1999
Reported in : (2000)125PLR224
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether the decision of the Medical Council of India (for short, the Council) to deny registration to the petitioners under the India Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is legally correct and justified is the question which arises for determination in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. For the sake of brevity, we deem it proper to refer to the facts of C.W.P. No. 12011 of 1998.3. After passing 10+2 examination in Medical stream, the petitioners joined one year language course at Tashkent (Uzbekistan) during the academic session 1991-92 because the passing of that course was a condition precedent for admission to the medical course in any of the Universities of the erstwhile U.S.S.R. After passing the language course, the petitioners joined M.D. (General Medicine) in the Section Tashkent State Medical Institute. Tashkent (for short, 'the Institute') in the year 1992. The duration of that course was 6 y...
Tag this Judgment!