Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992CriLJ3264; 1992(3)KarLJ49
..... . this is to be noticed at para 23 page nos. 332 & 333. 'the investigation into the offence had already started immediately on the fir being registered by the police authorities and pandit dhanraj himself admitted in his evidence that the investigation into the offence had thus started before the raid actually took place.' the supreme court did not in ..... with section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of prevention of corruption act as in the instant case, entire case rested on a trap laid by the police to catch the accused. patil, j. however, thought that the investigating officer was not justified in setting a trap to catch the accused after recording a complaint under section ..... but that does not means that the accused was entrusted with the duty or function of effecting mutations. 21. the voluntary say of p.w. 4 r. r. patil, police inspector, lok lokayukta (i.o.) in his evidence that he has seen the mutation register and that the accused has made entries in all the mutations will not take the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1992)94BOMLR660; 1992CriLJ2405
..... a coverlet by daula when alive. the bundle was carried and dumped into a well located in the field of dadaram. dadaram was warned against disclosing the happenings to the police or anyone else. the threats deterred him till about evening of 26-3-1987. dodging the appellants, dadaram made his way to the shrigonda ..... police station and there lodged a report which is at exhibit 12. an offence was registered and the investigation taken up by p.s.i. jawale (p.w. 10). in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR39
E.S. Da Silva, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the Order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29-8-1989 which rejected in limine the Writ Petition No. 295 of 1989 filed by the appellants against the respondents under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking for a writ of certiorari of any other writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the Orders dated 30-9-80, 21-8-91 and 27-2-89 of the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 respectively.2. The appellant No. 1 is the mother of the appellant No. 2 and of the respondent No. 7 and the respondent No. 8 is the wife of respondent No. 7. The case of the appellants is that there exists a property known as 'Tolcai Zor' situated at Aquem, Margao bearing Land Registration No. 35625 and enrolled in the Land Revenue Office under No. 1146 and No. 859. The said property was belonging originally to one Ana Joaquina Elizinha De Sa and her husband Anastasio Justiano De Saude Furtado. By Sale Deed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1992)2MLJ309
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The question referred to us is:Can the judgment of the Full Bench in R.Tamilarasan v. Director of Handlooms and Textiles : (1989)ILLJ588Mad , be characterised as one per incuriam or 'obiter dicta', as opined by the Division Bench of this Court in A.Natarajan v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies : (1991)IILLJ296Mad II. Full Benches.2. This is the first time in the long history of this Court, the judgment of a Full Bench is thrown over-board with the label per incuriam and brushed aside as 'obiter dicta' by a Division Bench. It is common knowledge that Full Benches are constituted specially for deciding specific questions referred to them. The judgment of the Full Bench is binding precedent as it expresses the collective opinion of the Court as such. It is binding on a single Judge as well as a Division Bench until it is reversed by a higher court. Mere expression of dissatisfaction by their Lordships of the Privy Council about the principles decided by a Full Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1757; 1992(2)KarLJ105
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The tenant of the residential premises is the first petitioner herein; the 2nd petitioner is the alleged sub-tenant. Parties, will be referred to hereinafter, with reference to their rankings in the trial Court.2. Petitioner landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (a), (f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The claim under Clause (a) no more survives, as the landlady has not challenged the order of rejection under this ground. 3. According to the landlady, the residential premises was leased to the 1st respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,850/- and mat he had shifted to Bombay as a permanent resident and that he has inducted the 2nd respondent as a sub-tenant. The rents sent on a few occasions by the 2nd respondent were accepted by the landlady, only as paid on behalf of the 1st respondent. Landlady has 3 daughters, she has no male issue: the elder daughter has completed her MBBS and at the time of fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n - 502 U.S. 491 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus PRESLEY v. ETOWAH COUNTY COMMISSION ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA No. 90-711. Argued November 12, 1991-Decided January 27, 1992* Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires a covered jurisdiction to obtain either judicial or administrative preclearance before enforcing any new "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting." In various Alabama counties, voters elect members of county commissions whose principal function is to supervise and control county road maintenance, repair, and construction. In No. 90-711, the Etowah County Commission, without seeking preclearance, passed, inter alia, its "Common Fund Resolution," which altered the prior practice of allowing each commissioner full authority to determine how to spend funds allocated to his own road district. The res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR132
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. Messrs Andhra Civil Construction Company has made an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay for filing of the arbitration agreement as contained in Clause 18 of the General Conditions of Contract forming part of contract dated 6th December 1980 between the petitioner and the respondent and for an order of reference in respect of various claims of the petitioner particularised in paragraph 20A of the petition. The petition is numbered and registered as a suit as required by the provisions of The Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. The petitioner has also made an application under section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for an order of injunction restraining the respondent from encashing the Bank guarantee, copy whereof is Exhibit 'A' to the petition/plaint or the renewal thereof in Arbitration Suit No. 3795 of 1990.3. It is necessary to summarise the material facts having bearing on the petition.(a) In or ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)41ITD582(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'] dated September 19, 1990.2. The first and the main controversy relates to Rs. 2057.77 lakhs disallowed and added back in the income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The relevant facts leading to the above addition are as follows.3. The assessee, a well-known public limited company, carried business of manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes in the previous year ending December 31, 1983, relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. The Company maintained its books of account on mercantile basis. The goods manufactured and produced by the asssssee were liable to Central Excise Duty and it is an admitted position that total liability incurred in the relevant period amounted to Rs. 8312.41 lakhs. The assessee actually paid towards duty a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1033; [1992]75CompCas12(SC); 1991CriLJ1391; JT1992(1)SC405; 1992(1)SCALE216; (1992)2SCC343; [1992]1SCR406
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Special Leave granted in all the petitions.2. This litigation is an upshot of the earlier case Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. and Ors. : [1987]2SCR1 decided on January 22, 1987. In 1978 the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short 'the Banning Act, was enacted 'to ban the promotion or conduct of prize chits or money circulation schemes and for matters connected therewith or incidental 'hereto.' The question which arose in the above case was whether the Endowment Scheme piloted by the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd, (hereinafter in short 'the Peerless') fell within the definition of 'Prize Chits' within' the meaning of Section 2(e) of the above Banning Act. By a letter dated July 23, 1979, the Reserve Bank of India pointed out to the Peerless that the schemes conducted by it were covered by the provisions of the Banning Act which had come into force w.e.f. December 12, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1316; ILR1992KAR2725; 1992(4)KarLJ240
..... frustrate the entire scheme of the amending act. if cognizance is taken on complaint the mode of trial would be different from the one where cognizance is taken on police report. thus for the self same offence there would be two different modes of trial without any rational basis for the same.' the attention of padmanabhan j. of ..... taken recourse to prosecute a person accused of an offence under the act. that is to say, during the subsistence of the amending act cognizance can be taken only on police report under s. 12aa(1)(e) and not otherwise. consequently, where a complaint was filed by sub-divisional controller, food and supplies for violation of w. b. ..... found using kerosene mixed with petrol as fuel on using kerosene mixed with petrol as fuel on 21-3-1988 at about 11.55 a.m. in front of basavangudi police station. 3. in criminal revision petition no. 319/90, the offence alleged against the respondents was, the contravention of clause (15) of the karnataka cement control order, .....
Tag this Judgment!