Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)2CALLT6(SC); [1995]83CompCas187(SC); 1995(1)CTC202; JT1995(2)SC151; 1995(1)SCALE387; (1995)2SCC150; [1995]1SCR707; 1995(1)LC471(SC)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, is whether a banking company which renders service within meaning of Clauses (g) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred in brief as 'the Act') is liable to compensate its customers for loss of service due to illegal strike by its employees.2. Reasons for the strike due to enforcement of scheme of transfer by the Bank and its being illegal due to employees resorting to it during pendency of conciliation proceedings before the Commission have not been assailed in this appeal. Even the finding that the bank was prevented from rendering any skeleton service to its customers due to unruly behavior of the employees who not only created barricades by forming human wall before the bank but even mutilated and defaced the signature on cheques issued by the bank to cater to urgent demands of its customers by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2169; 1995CriLJ3974
1. Despite the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the prosecutrix was taken out of the lawful guardianship of her mother, for which the appellants were accountable under Section 366, I.P.C. we have come to the view on going through the record and hearing learned Counsel that the prosecutrix was an unreliable witness and no credence can be given to her word.2. The two appellants were friends. They were young people at the time of the commission of the offence in the year 1984. Out of them, Shyam, A-1 wanted to marry the prosecutrix, Lalita. He made a proposal to her about two to three months prior to the occurrence which was spurned by her. On the day of the occurrence, she was incidentally at the common tap for washing clothes and to fetch water back home. The appellants riding their respective bicycles came at that time and at their asking she sat on the carrier of the bicycle of Suresh. A-2 and Shyam, A-l followed that bicycle as if escorting. The prosecutrix was taken to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3651; (1997)9SCC101
ORDER1. A sample of ice-cream purchased by the Food Inspector from the appellant was reported by the Public Analyst to be adulterated because of reduction of milk-fat and total solids in the product. Yet, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant on the ground that Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with inasmuch as the Food Inspector in support of his word did not adduce in evidence the postal receipt to establish that he had sent not only the sample of ice-cream properly sealed and fastened but the specimen impression of the seal too separately, so that the Public Analyst could certify that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector to him. It was taken that unless the conditions aforementioned were satisfied, the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis. The High Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court taking the view that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)7SCC70
J.S. Verma and; K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.1. This appeal by the Revenue is by a certificate granted by the High Court. The question of law referred to the High Court for its decision was as under"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 17(1)(a) of the Gift tax Act, 1958, as amended by the Gift Tax Amendment Act, 1962, would not apply to the levy of penalty in this case ?" *2. The High Court answered the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. This has given rise to the present appeal3. The material facts are only a few. The last date for filing the return under the Gift Tax Act by the assessee was 30-6-1962. The assessee filed the return on 22-10-1963. The assessment was completed on 31-3-1964 and a notice was issued to the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed in terms of Section 17(1)(a) of the Act failure to file the return within the prescribed period. The assessee gave the reply on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC238a; 1995(2)ALT1(SC); 1995(1)CTC568; [1995]213ITR340(SC); JT1995(2)SC667; 1995(1)SCALE692; (1995)2SCC630
1. In this group of matters a common question arises for our consideration. It is to the following effect "whether Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act') can be applied to suit, claim or action to enforce any right in property held benami against person in whose name such property is held or any other person, in such proceeding is initiated by or on be- half of a person claiming to be real owner 672 thereof, prior to the coming into force of Section 4 (1) of the Act. Section 4 with its relevant sub-sections reads as under:"Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami - (1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.(2) No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC238; 1996(1)BLJR116; (1995)124CTR(SC)311; 1996(6)KarLJ531; 1995(0)MPLJ402; [1995]1SCR715
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of matters a common question arises for our consideration. It is to the following effect 'whether Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act') can be applied to suit, claim or action to enforce any right in property held benami against person in whose name such property is held or any other person, if such proceeding is initiated by or on behalf of a person claiming to be real owner thereof, prior to the coming into force of Section 4(1) of the Act'. Section 4 with its relevant Sub-sections reads as under :-'Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami - (1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.(2) No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2171; 1995CriLJ3975; (1998)1GLR108; (1996)11SCC641
1. This is a case of peculiar angularities. The deceased Ramniklal was a middle aged school Head Master working at a village known as Akala. In order to go to his place of work he was waiting on the day of occurrence at bus stand Lathi whereat the appellant herein, Devku Bhikha, a young man, came. They engaged in talks. Apparently, there was a topic and background to the talk. The appellant was unemployed for long and the Head master had a job up sleeve which he could give to the appellant. The deceased enquired of the appellant whether he could be able to send his wife to the former's house at night. On that suggestion the accused was taken aback. Then the deceased charged the appellant for being impotent. This further enraged the appellant. The deceased then told the appellant that his wife had sent the former a letter inviting him and that that letter he carried in his handbag. The accused in a rage snatched the bag and frantically searched for the letter, but to no avail. He then t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC683
Kuldip Singh and; Venkatachala, JJ.1. These appeals are a sequel to the suit instituted by the appellants-plaintiffs for recovery of possession of agricultural land on the basis of the certificate of exemption granted to them under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act). The possession was sought to be recovered from the respondents who were tenants on the land. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by the High Court. These appeals by grant of certificate by the High Court are against the judgment of the High Court.2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. It is no doubt correct that the certificate of exemption was granted to the appellants under Section 88-B of the Act. But later on, under Section 31 of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 (the 1969 Act), Section 88-E was inserted in the Act. Section 88-E(1) is in the following terms:“88-E. (1) Notwithstanding anythi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1352; [1995(70)FLR827]; JT1995(2)SC37; (1995)IILLJ126SC; 1995(1)SCALE380; 1995Supp(1)SCC557; 1995(1)LC361(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, arises out of proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The appellant was appointed in the clerical grade of the respondent-bank by order dated March 21, 1970. The said appointment was on probation for a period of six months which could be extended by the respondent-bank at its discretion. In the letter of appointment it was stated that during the probation period, the appellant's services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever by one month's notice or on payment of a month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. In pursuance of the said letter of appointment the appellant joined duty on April 6, 1970. The period of probation which was to expire on October 6, 1970 was extended for a further period of three months. Before the expiry of the extended probation period the services of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(1)Crimes566(SC); 1995(1)CTC309; JT1995(3)SC166; 1995(1)SCALE423; (1995)2SCC449; [1995]1SCR712; 1995(1)LC456(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of an order made by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 9th November, 1993, in Criminal Original Petition No. 8730/92, Crl. M.P. No. 4794/92 and Crl. M.P. No. 6765/92. The learned Judge quashed the First Information Report, Crime No. 246/92 of P.S. Tallakulam, in so far as the respondent is concerned as also the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom against him.3. We have gone through the order of the learned Single Judge and heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. M.S.K. Shanmugovel Chettiyar lodged a first information report at P.S. Tallakulam against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 147/148/342/323/395/500(ii) and 109 IPC. Investigation was taken in hand and some evidence was collected by the investigating agency. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court and by the impugned order the petition was allowed and the proceedings emanating fr...
Tag this Judgment!