|
|
| |
Recent's Posts |
 |
Re:NRI wants to make Will
by
Suchitra. S
 , Scorecard
: 1998
Madam,
1. Whether he can make such two separate wills on different dates with different nations for sucession applicable on both Will?
Ans. One cannot make two wills on different dates. But he make additions to the earlier will by attaching a codicil. A codicil is an attachment to the will made earier.
2. Can there be any over-ridding effect on the previous Will due to creation of another Will?
Ans. If one does not make additions through a codicil, then, the later will have overriding effects.
3. Can we combine both Wills. if yes then how....?
Ans. I have answered it already.
4. Should he mention the aboard properties in detail along with the property in India, in Will which he is going to make in India?
Ans. The wordings of a will should be clear and unambiguos. One has to clearly mention about his properties with proper descripttions, wherever they are.
|
|
Re:is it true BAR & BANCH two wheels?
by
Gundlapallis
, Scorecard
: 1313
You mean to say... judiciary is moving only on a two wheeler? I heard somewhere 'Dharma' had 4 'padas'
|
|
Re:Two rent agreements
by
Gundlapallis
, Scorecard
: 1313
Both agreements contradict with each other - kill themselves and lie dead. No use for you. Your tenant is 'employee'. You better have an agreement with him for 'Your' amount - Whether his employer pays him or not is not for you to bother. You are not letting out your premises to the Employer, isnt it? What your tenant actually gets from his employer... and how is he going to make up the difference.. you need not bother.
|
|
Re:False complaints
by
Gundlapallis
, Scorecard
: 1313
When you have an injunction order in your favour against socalled opposite person... your should also file a petition mentioning the disobedience of the order, in the court which granted injunction. Consult your lawyer who obtained injuction order for you.
|
|
Re:Crime and police
by
Gundlapallis
, Scorecard
: 1313
Positive side ... good to notice even police are getting caught... by the police !
|
|
Re:Hello !
by
Gundlapallis
, Scorecard
: 1313
Welcome
|
|
Re:negotiable instrument
by
Gundlapallis
, Scorecard
: 1313
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + 1. CRL.M.C. 3693/2009
+ 2. CRL.M.C. 3200/2009
+ 3. CRL.M.C. 3678/2009
+ 4. CRL.M.C. 3694/2009
# HARDEEP SINGH NAGRA ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Kuldeep Singh and Mr.
Harpreet Singh, Advs.
versus
$ STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent ^ Through: Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP * CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes : V.K. JAIN, J.
1. These are petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing the criminal complaints
instituted against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. A perusal of the complaints would show that besides M/s Routes Car Rentals
(India) Pvt. Ltd., three other persons, including the petitioner, have been
arraigned as accused. It has been alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint that
accused no. 4 i.e Hardeep Singh Nagra had given personal guarantee to the
complainant in respect of repayment of loan mentioned in Crl.M.C.3693/2009
Page 1 of 3 the complaint.
3. The petitioner committed no offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, merely by giving guarantee for the loans taken by
accused No. 1 and 2. It is the drawer of the cheque who is liable to punishment
in case the cheque used by him towards discharge in full or in part of a debut
or liability, when presented to his bank for encashment, is dishonoured for
want of funds and he fails to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice
envisaged in proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act. There is no allegation in
the complaint that the cheques in question were drawn by the petitioner.
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act does not fasten any criminal
liability on the guarantor of a loan secured or sought to be paid by way of a
cheque, which, when presented to the bank for encashment is dishonoured for
want of funds. Of course, the guarantor incurs a civil liability to pay the
debt guaranteed by him and his liability may be joint as well as several, but,
he is not liable to be punished under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the
petitioner is a Director in M/s Routes Car Rentals (India) Pvt. Ltd which has
been arraigned as accused no. 1, there is no averment to this effect in the
complaint. If the Crl.M.C.3693/2009 Page 2 of 3 offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act is committed by a company, every person who is in-
charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business, at the
time of commission of offence, is also liable to punishment on account of
vicarious liability created by Section 141 of the Act. This is not the case of
the complainant that petitioner No.4 was also a person in-charge of and
responsible to the company M/s Routes Car Rentals (India) Pvt. Ltd. for conduct
of its business. In the absence of such an averment in the complaint it also
cannot be said that the petitioner is vicariously liable for the offence
committed by the company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on
account of dishonor of the cheques issued by it and its failure to make payment
even after the receipt of notice from the complainant.
5. Since no offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is made out
against the petitioner from the averments made, the criminal complaints subject
matter of these petitions to the extent they pertain to the petitioner are
hereby quashed. However, the trial will continue as far as the other accused
are concerned.
(V.K.JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 21, 2010
|
|
stamp and registration
by
VIKAS GARG
, Scorecard
: 1743
here my question is that if any consent decree is passed by court in relation of immovable property then "is it necessary to pay stamp duty to get it registered?"
plz tell clarify the law in this regard. plz any special in this regard in state of haryana and delhi.
thanks
|
|
negotiable instrument
by
VIKAS GARG
, Scorecard
: 1743
somebody told me that there is judgment of apex court or on any high court which says that court can review its decision of issuing summons to accused in cheque dishonoring if cheque is issued in as security and surety instead for present liability. here in my case complainant expressly admitted that cheque issued by accused no.1 for future liability and by accused no. 2 as a surety. could you plz just any such judgment which suports my case.
i m representing both accused.
plz suggest me other judgment which might say that section 138 of ni cannot be invoked if cheque is issued for future liability means as a security and also judgments which also bars invoking of 138 if cheque is issued as surety.
thanks
|
|
Re:NUMBER OF ADVOCATES IN THE COUNTRY
by
RG
, Scorecard
: 22
Thanks for the info Sachin.
|
|
Re:NRI Divrorce
by
Ramesh
, Scorecard
: 40
is the complaint valid ? it was lodged by the girl whose now in US ? it's mere harrasment ...as none of the parties are resident of the country just trying to get money ?
|
|
recent case laws
by
karinamishra
, Scorecard
: 121
February 22,2010 |
Specific Relief - Trespasser/Tenant |
Sadashiv Shyama Sawant [D] Vs. Anita Anant Sawant
Civil Appeal No. 1930 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No. 10418 of 2008]
where a tenant in exclusive possession is dispossessed forcibly by a person other than landlord, can landlord maintain suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 against such person for immediate possession. The incidental question is, whether tenant is a necessary party in such suit ..... There is nothing in Section 6 of the Act to bar a landlord from suing a trespasser in possession even when, at the date of dispossession, the property is in actual occupation of a tenant entitled to possession ..... It may be desirable that a landlord in a suit under Section 6 of the Act against a trespasser for immediate possession when, at the date of dispossession, the house was in occupation of a tenant, impleads the tenant, but his non-impleadment is not fatal to the maintainability of such suit |
2010 STPL(Web) 135 SC |
|
|
January 14,2010 |
Dowery Death - Conviction upheld |
Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 1327 of 2003
A reading of the evidence shows that it was the appellant who had, just a few days' before the incident, visited the house of his father-in-law and threatened Kamlesh Rani with dire consequences if his demand for a scooter and two gold rings was not fulfilled and Bhim Sain, the brother of the deceased had told him that his father Tej Ram was not in a position to meet the demands on account of financial difficulties. A few days later Ramji Das (PW.2) too had visited Kamlesh Rani's in-law's home and had also informed Tej Ram thereafter that the appellant had been found beating his wife at that time and had once again threatened that if the demands were not satisfied Kamlesh Kaur would pay dearly for it. It is true, as contended by Mr. Sharan, that in a case where the peculiar evidence has been discarded with respect to four of the five accused, the presumption under Section 113-B could to some extent be said to be dispelled, but on an over view we find that the primary role and the weight of the evidence has been on the appellant herein |
2010 STPL(Web) 134 SC |
|
February 18,2010 |
Service Law - Removal |
Angad Das Vs. Union of India
Civil Appeal Nos. 1429-1430 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.6975-6976/2009)
the request letter of the appellant for Respondent-employment was treated as an appeal by the DIG Police, CRPF, Avadi, Madras and the punishment of "compulsory retirement" as awarded by the Commandant, 51 BN, CRPF, was enhanced to that of "removal from service" w.e.f. 31.5.1996. No provision of law permits him to treat a letter of request for Respondent-employment as an appeal. The DIG (Police) has no power or authority to enhance the sentence of the appellant. We fail to comprehend how such an innocuous and polite letter of request seeking Respondent- employment on compassionate ground can ever receive such an unwarranted and arrogant reaction. The order is wholly arbitrary and illegal ..... We also direct that the appellant be paid all the pensionary benefits which have become due and payable to him, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within two months from the date of communication of this order ..... Union of India is directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant within two months |
2010 STPL(Web) 133 SC |
|
February 16,2010 |
Service Law - Post/Benefits |
State of West Bengal Vs. Kamala Prasad
Civil Appeal Nos. 1742-1743 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)Nos.17501-17502 of 2007)
It was contended that since the civil court had held that the decree was not executable, the learned single judge had committed an error in granting the reliefs by entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noticed that the civil court had given a declaration that the Writ Petitioners were Class-III employees and that the State Government and the college did not challenge that decree instead they filed a suit challenging the decree passed by the civil court which was dismissed ..... The High Court, in our view, has rightly held that while directing consideration of the claims of the respondents herein, as Class -III employees, the court is not executing the Civil Court's decree but only recognizing the fact that the Civil Court has declared their status as Class-III employees, which is binding on the appellants |
2010 STPL(Web) 132 SC |
|
February 16,2010 |
Service Law - Post/Benefits |
State of West Bengal Vs. Kamala Prasad
Civil Appeal Nos. 1742-1743 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)Nos.17501-17502 of 2007)
It was contended that since the civil court had held that the decree was not executable, the learned single judge had committed an error in granting the reliefs by entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noticed that the civil court had given a declaration that the Writ Petitioners were Class-III employees and that the State Government and the college did not challenge that decree instead they filed a suit challenging the decree passed by the civil court which was dismissed ..... The High Court, in our view, has rightly held that while directing consideration of the claims of the respondents herein, as Class -III employees, the court is not executing the Civil Court's decree but only recognizing the fact that the Civil Court has declared their status as Class-III employees, which is binding on the appellants |
2010 STPL(Web) 132 SC |
|
February 11,2010 |
Attempt to murder - Conviction upheld |
Satyavir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2010 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3207 of 2009)
it is only the limited aspect of the case as to whether the firing was accidental or the accused had intentionally fired on the injured. Statement of the eye witnesses, medical evidence and the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer clearly show that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The act of firing gun shots at the injured obviously shows that the accused had the knowledge that by such an act he may even cause the death of the injured and actually caused hurt to victim ..... Some discrepancies per se would not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution particularly when there is no reason before the Court to doubt the statement of the eye witnesses, PW-1. There has been no delay in registration of the case and in fact even a counter case was registered which did not result in favourable culmination for the accused |
2010 STPL(Web) 131 SC |
|
February 17,2010 |
Land Reforms - Jurisdiction of Civil Court |
R. Ravindra Reddy Vs. H. Ramaiah Reddy
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6286 of 2009
In the instant case, the question as to whether Annaiah Reddy was an occupancy tenant or not and whether Pilla Reddy had given his consent to such claim is in the domain of the Land Tribunal and it has been correctly held by the Courts below that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide such a question ..... However, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that Annaiah Reddy committed any fraud on Pilla Reddy, who willingly accepted the claim of Annaiah Reddy to occupancy rights over the land in question |
2010 STPL(Web) 130 SC |
|
|
|
recent case laws
by
karinamishra
, Scorecard
: 121
February 24,2010 |
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Awarding higher than from claim |
Sagunthala (Dead) Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.)
Civil Appeal No(s). 6240-6243 of 2001 With Civil Appeal Nos. 6244-6248 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 495-504 of 2002
The High Court held that the Reference Court had given no reason at all for awarding compensation higher than what had been claimed ..... As such we observe that the Reference Court rightly fixed the amount of compensation to be Rs. 1,75,000/- and we are inclined to uphold the said finding. As far as the question of grant of higher compensation than what is claimed by the claimants goes, the Reference Court has observed, and in our opinion rightly so, that even before the representation before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had stated that in event of their being not satisfied with the award, they reserve the right to go before the Civil Court for determination of just and reasonable compensation |
2010 STPL(Web) 142 SC |
|
February 24,2010 |
Municipality - Construction Plan |
Indore Municipal Corporation Vs. Hemalata
Civil Appeal No.5031 of 2005
He held that the two inspection reports by the officers of the Municipal Corporation and Town and Country Planning Department established that there were no violations and the construction was in accordance with the sanctioned plan and there was no justification to issue such show-cause notice or pass an order directing demolition. The appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation was dismissed by a Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2004 ..... Therefore, neither the land coverage percentage is exceeded, nor the permitted FAR is exceeded, nor the sanctioned construction area is exceeded. The third ground also therefore does not have any merit. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench considered these aspects and rightly rejected the contention of the appellants |
2010 STPL(Web) 141 SC |
|
February 23,2010 |
Contempt - Sentence and fine set aside |
Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 527, 531 of 2002
we reach the inescapable conclusion that contempt proceedings had been concluded without ensuring the compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules 1952. The appellants had never been informed as what were the charges against them. The relevant documents on the basis of which the High Court had taken a prima facie view while initiating the contempt proceedings suo motu, had not been made available to them. The notice itself was not only defective, but inaccurate and totally mis-leading. The facts and circumstances of the case warrant reversal of the aforesaid judgment and order |
2010 STPL(Web) 140 SC |
|
February 18,2010 |
Contempt - Cost set aside |
P.K. Singh Vs. S.N. Kanungo
Civil Appeal No. 6551 of 2002
After reaching the conclusion that the violation is neither willful nor deliberate, the High Court should have at once dropped the contempt proceedings and could not have accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant nor could have imposed cost on the appellant ..... For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment is set aside. The cost, if any, recovered from the appellant be refunded to him |
2010 STPL(Web) 139 SC |
|
February 18,2010 |
Murder - Conviction by High Court upheld |
Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Assam
Criminal Appeal No.946 of 2002
In the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that this was not a case where two views were possible and the court below has taken the one view. According to the High Court, on careful scrutiny of the evidence, no other view point is possible. The High Court was left with no option but to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. In our view, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the acquittal so far as the appellant herein and Abdul Salam and Abdul Subhan are concerned ..... the respondent-State would take all necessary steps to arrest the appellant and lodge him in jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence |
2010 STPL(Web) 138 SC |
|
February 23,2010 |
(A) Murder - Acquittal by High Court Upheld (B) Constitutional Law - Scope of interference under Art. 136 |
State of U.P. Vs. Guru Charan
Criminal Appeal Nos. 297-298 of 2002
Upon this thorough examination of the entire witness, the High Court has concluded that the evidence of Nathu Singh (P.W.2) is falsified by the evidence of Dr. Ram Babu (P.W.6). Consequently, Nathu Singh (PW 2) has also been held to be unreliable witness ..... According to the prosecution witnesses, the driver, Virendra, sustained injuries in the same incident and by the same assailants. He was also an eye witness. He was alleged to have taken Vijay Kumar (P.W.1) to the police station. Yet he has not been examined by the prosecution ..... The scope of interference in Article 136 in an appeal against acquittal is rather limited. The position with regard to circumstances in which the appellate court would interfere with an acquittal has been recently restated by this court |
2010 STPL(Web) 137 SC |
|
February 19,2010 |
Dealership Cancellation |
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Super Highway Services
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.104 of 2009
whether the dealership of the Respondent No.1 had been validly terminated ..... A check was conducted at the outlet of the Respondent No.1 Company, where a sample of High Speed Diesel (HSD) failed the Marker Test, which indicated that the same had been contaminated ..... The cancellation of dealership agreement of a party is a serious business and cannot be taken lightly. In order to justify the action taken to terminate such an agreement, the concerned authority has to act fairly and in complete adherence to the rules/guidelines framed for the said purpose. The non-service of notice to the aggrieved person before termination of his dealership agreement also offends the well- established principle that no person should be condemned unheard |
|
|
Re:NRI Divrorce
by
HARSH PAREKH
, Scorecard
: 58
Hi Ramesh,
I would like to know where is the complaint lodged in CAW cell by girl's mother in India and accordingly you can take the defence against the complaint. A copy of complaint shall put forth before the lawyer in order to look at the Allegations put by the girl on you and your parents.
Regards,
Harsh Parekh
Advocate
|
|
recent case laws
by
karinamishra
, Scorecard
: 121
February 26,2010 |
Land Acquisition - Reference - Limitation |
Bhagwan Das Vs. State of UP
Civil Appeal Nos. 2069-2070 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24191-92 of 2008] with Civil Appeal Nos. 2071-2072 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24193-94 of 2008]
The Collector, Banda vide his order dated 19.12.2007 rejected the application seeking reference, on the ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of the award, prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act ….. When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative ….. A vague endorsement that the person who had to serve the notice went to village and informed the farmers, is not the same as notice being specifically tendered to the person concerned ….. the writ petition is allowed and the Collector is directed to make a reference to the civil court under section 18 of the Act, without any delay, not later than two months |
2010 STPL(Web) 149 SC |
|
|
February 26,2010 |
Condonation of Delay - Four Years - Set aside |
Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
Civil Appeal No.2075 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10965 of 2009)
Whether the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was justified in condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal by the respondents ….. the High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act |
2010 STPL(Web) 148 SC |
|
February 26,2010 |
Income Tax - Foreign Currency Loan - Roll over Charges |
Assst. C.I.T., Vadodara Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8363 of 2009 ) with Civil Appeal No. 2058 of 2010 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8898 of 2009) Civil Appeal No. 2059 of
The A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs.8,86,280/-, being the roll over premium charges paid by the assessee in respect of foreign exchange forward contracts to Citibank N.A. on the ground that the said charges were incurred in connection with the purchase of a capital asset (plant and machinery), hence, it was not admissible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) or under Section 3 37 of the Act ….. According to Indian Accounting Standards by Dolphy D'Souza, roll over charges are indicative of the increase or decrease in the liability of the company in the next specified period, generally of six months. Roll over charges represent the difference arising on account of change in foreign exchange rates. Roll over charges paid/ received in respect of liabilities relating to the acquisition of fixed assets should be debited/ credited to the asset in respect of which liability was incurred. However, roll over charges not relating to fixed assets should be charged to the Profit & Loss Account. [See page 325] ….. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the Department are allowed with no order as to costs |
2010 STPL(Web) 147 SC |
|
February 26,2010 |
Sales Tax - Concessional rate |
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vam Organic Chemicals Limited
Civil Appeal No.1929 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos.1930 of 2004, 1931-1932 of 2004, 1933 of 2004, 2810-2938 of 2004, 4298 of 2009, 4299 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No. 2056 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6979 of 2010 @ CC 2279 of 2009
These respondents have been given central registration under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and also Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, for purchase of high speed diesel oil at concessional rate ….. According to the Department, in the present case, the notified goods consisted of chemicals and not electricity, hence, HSD was not used in the process of production of chemicals directly ….. we find that Recognition Certificates have been issued as far back as in 1980. For the reasons given hereinabove, we remit all these cases to the Assessing Authority with a direction to treat the show-cause notice(s) issued for the purposes of amending the existing Recognition Certificate(s). Each assessee will be given a hearing. Each case for amendment of Recognition Certificate will be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act. The Assessing Authority will decide each case on it's own merits |
2010 STPL(Web) 146 SC |
|
February 25,2010 |
SEBI - Amendment - Procedure - Retrospective Effect |
Securities & Exchange Board f India Vs. Ajay Agarwal
Civil Appeal No.1697 of 2005
restraining the respondent from associating with any corporate body in accessing the securities market and prohibiting him from buying, selling or dealing in securities ….. Thus, the question arose whether any direction can be issued under Section 11-B for the alleged misconduct said to have been committed prior to introduction of Section 11-B. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the provision of Section 11-B cannot be invoked in respect of the alleged misconduct which took place at a point of time when Section 11-B was not on the statute book ….. It is nobody's case that Board has exercised those powers in respect of a proceeding which was initiated prior to the enactment of those provisions. In fact Board has issued the show cause notice in terms of Section 11-B and considered the reply of the respondent. In such a situation, there has no infraction in the procedure ….. Therefore, the entire basis of the order of the Appellate Tribunal that provision of Section 11- B cannot be applied retrospectively has been passed on an erroneous basis, as discussed herein above ….. Provisions of Section 11-B being procedural in nature can be applied retrospectively |
2010 STPL(Web) 145 SC |
|
February 25,2010 |
Sexual Harassment at work Place |
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal
Civil Appeal No.2050 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15458 of 2007)
the Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the University in respect of action taken against those respondents on the basis of the allegations of 5th and 6th respondent of s*xual harassment at the work place ….. The main question on which the matter was argued by the appellants was that the High Court was in error in deciding that the Grievance Committee constituted under Section 53 of the said Act, has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any complaint filed by the 5th and 6th respondent, as they are not approved teachers of the respondent college ….. this Court is constrained to hold that the Hon'ble High Court possibly fell into an error by holding that the Grievance Committee has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by 5th and 6th respondent since they are not approved teachers |
2010 STPL(Web) 144 SC |
|
February 25,2010 |
Service Law - Appointment - Seniority |
A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Prasada Rao
Civil Appeal Nos. 2043-2046 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 284-287 of 2008] with Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 504 of 2009]
We direct that the select list which was prepared by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission pursuant to the judgment and order of this Court dated 14.09.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2006 and which is contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission is restored and that appointment shall be given effect to by the competent authority in terms of the seniority position ascribed in the said select list as contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission but subject to the condition |
2010 STPL(Web) 143 SC |
|
February 26,2010 |
Land Acquisition - Reference - Limitation |
Bhagwan Das Vs. State of UP
Civil Appeal Nos. 2069-2070 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24191-92 of 2008] with Civil Appeal Nos. 2071-2072 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24193-94 of 2008]
The Collector, Banda vide his order dated 19.12.2007 rejected the application seeking reference, on the ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of the award, prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act ….. When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative ….. A vague endorsement that the person who had to serve the notice went to village and informed the farmers, is not the same as notice being specifically tendered to the person concerned ….. the writ petition is allowed and the Collector is directed to make a reference to the civil court under section 18 of the Act, without any delay, not later than two months |
2010 149 SC |
|
|
February 26,2010 |
Condonation of Delay - Four Years - Set aside |
Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
Civil Appeal No.2075 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10965 of 2009)
Whether the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was justified in condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal by the respondents ….. the High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act |
2010 STPL(Web) 148 SC |
|
February 26,2010 |
Income Tax - Foreign Currency Loan - Roll over Charges |
Assst. C.I.T., Vadodara Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8363 of 2009 ) with Civil Appeal No. 2058 of 2010 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8898 of 2009) Civil Appeal No. 2059 of
The A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs.8,86,280/-, being the roll over premium charges paid by the assessee in respect of foreign exchange forward contracts to Citibank N.A. on the ground that the said charges were incurred in connection with the purchase of a capital asset (plant and machinery), hence, it was not admissible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) or under Section 3 37 of the Act ….. According to Indian Accounting Standards by Dolphy D'Souza, roll over charges are indicative of the increase or decrease in the liability of the company in the next specified period, generally of six months. Roll over charges represent the difference arising on account of change in foreign exchange rates. Roll over charges paid/ received in respect of liabilities relating to the acquisition of fixed assets should be debited/ credited to the asset in respect of which liability was incurred. However, roll over charges not relating to fixed assets should be charged to the Profit & Loss Account. [See page 325] ….. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the Department are allowed with no order as to costs |
2010 STPL(Web) 147 SC |
|
February 26,2010 |
Sales Tax - Concessional rate |
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vam Organic Chemicals Limited
Civil Appeal No.1929 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos.1930 of 2004, 1931-1932 of 2004, 1933 of 2004, 2810-2938 of 2004, 4298 of 2009, 4299 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No. 2056 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6979 of 2010 @ CC 2279 of 2009
These respondents have been given central registration under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and also Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, for purchase of high speed diesel oil at concessional rate ….. According to the Department, in the present case, the notified goods consisted of chemicals and not electricity, hence, HSD was not used in the process of production of chemicals directly ….. we find that Recognition Certificates have been issued as far back as in 1980. For the reasons given hereinabove, we remit all these cases to the Assessing Authority with a direction to treat the show-cause notice(s) issued for the purposes of amending the existing Recognition Certificate(s). Each assessee will be given a hearing. Each case for amendment of Recognition Certificate will be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act. The Assessing Authority will decide each case on it's own merits |
2010 STPL(Web) 146 SC |
|
February 25,2010 |
SEBI - Amendment - Procedure - Retrospective Effect |
Securities & Exchange Board f India Vs. Ajay Agarwal
Civil Appeal No.1697 of 2005
restraining the respondent from associating with any corporate body in accessing the securities market and prohibiting him from buying, selling or dealing in securities ….. Thus, the question arose whether any direction can be issued under Section 11-B for the alleged misconduct said to have been committed prior to introduction of Section 11-B. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the provision of Section 11-B cannot be invoked in respect of the alleged misconduct which took place at a point of time when Section 11-B was not on the statute book ….. It is nobody's case that Board has exercised those powers in respect of a proceeding which was initiated prior to the enactment of those provisions. In fact Board has issued the show cause notice in terms of Section 11-B and considered the reply of the respondent. In such a situation, there has no infraction in the procedure ….. Therefore, the entire basis of the order of the Appellate Tribunal that provision of Section 11- B cannot be applied retrospectively has been passed on an erroneous basis, as discussed herein above ….. Provisions of Section 11-B being procedural in nature can be applied retrospectively |
2010 STPL(Web) 145 SC |
|
February 25,2010 |
Sexual Harassment at work Place |
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal
Civil Appeal No.2050 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15458 of 2007)
the Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the University in respect of action taken against those respondents on the basis of the allegations of 5th and 6th respondent of s*xual harassment at the work place ….. The main question on which the matter was argued by the appellants was that the High Court was in error in deciding that the Grievance Committee constituted under Section 53 of the said Act, has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any complaint filed by the 5th and 6th respondent, as they are not approved teachers of the respondent college ….. this Court is constrained to hold that the Hon'ble High Court possibly fell into an error by holding that the Grievance Committee has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by 5th and 6th respondent since they are not approved teachers |
2010 STPL(Web) 144 SC |
|
February 25,2010 |
Service Law - Appointment - Seniority |
A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Prasada Rao
Civil Appeal Nos. 2043-2046 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 284-287 of 2008] with Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 504 of 2009]
We direct that the select list which was prepared by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission pursuant to the judgment and order of this Court dated 14.09.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2006 and which is contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission is restored and that appointment shall be given effect to by the competent authority in terms of the seniority position ascribed in the said select list as contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission but subject to the condition |
2010 STPL(Web) 143 SC |
|
|
|
Re:can i get divorce from canada
by
HARSH PAREKH
, Scorecard
: 58
Hello Satnam Singh,
You can contact me on harshmparekh@gmail.com for any queries.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
Regards,
Harsh Parekh
Advocate
|
|
Re:GIVE ME RESPONCE
by
HARSH PAREKH
, Scorecard
: 58
Hello Mr. Jatin,
I would like to advise you that your wife has filed a complaint in Woman Cell at New Delhi for Section 498A IPC i.e. Cruelty and Dowry purposes in order to harass you and your parents for the same. I would like to have a glance over the complaint as what are allegations put on you and your parents in the Complaint. I am practicing lawyer in New Delhi. I would be able to advise you accordingly in your case. You have filed a Restitutuion of Conjugal Rights i.e. Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in order to get back her to your home.
Hoping to hear from you soon
Harsh Parekh
Email :- harshmparekh@gmail.com
|
|
Re:Women Reservation Bill
by
Rajesh Kumar
, Scorecard
: 4001
With this reservation the nation is doomed.
Supreme Court says that a women is entitled for "maintenance" even when she is educated and able bodied. Even for an educated women cannot be presumed that she can maintain herself........women cant maintain herself................. so let them become Member of parliament, they will maintain the country.
|
|
Re:To adopt a srilankan family in India - help needed
by
suresh
, Scorecard
: 83
they are not doing anything....lots of ppls are killed by the government....is it possible to get work permits here and make them as a citizen after 5 or some years residing here? is there any chances or laws ?
|
|
Re:Section 169 Companies Act
by
karinamishra
, Scorecard
: 121
169. CALLING OF EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING ON REQUISITION.
(1) The Board of directors of a company shall, on the requisition of such number of members of the company as is specified in sub-section (4), forthwith proceed duly to call an extraordinary general meeting of the company.
(2) The requisition shall set out the matters for the consideration of which the meeting is to be called, shall be signed by the requisitionists, and shall be deposited at the registered office of the company.
(3) The requisition may consist of several documents in like form, each signed by one or more requisitionists.
(4) The number of members entitled to requisition a meeting in regard to any matter shall be -
(a) in the case of a company having a share capital, such number of them as hold at the date of the deposit of the requisition, not less than one-tenth of such of the paid-up capital of the company as at that date carries the right of voting in regard to that matter;
(b) in the case of a company not having a share capital, such number of them as have at the date of deposit of the requisition not less than one-tenth of the total voting power of all the members having at the said date a right to vote in regard to that matter.
(5) Where two or more distinct matters are specified in the requisition, the provisions of sub-section (4) shall apply separately in regard to each such matter; and the requisition shall accordingly be valid only in respect of those matters in regard to which the condition specified in that sub-section is fulfilled.
(6) If the Board does not, within twenty-one days from the date of the deposit of a valid requisition in regard to any matters, proceed duly to call a meeting for the consideration of those matters on a day not later than forty-five days from the date of the deposit of the requisition, the meeting may be called -
(a) by the requisitionists themselves;
(b) in the case of a company having a share capital, by such of the requisitionists as represent either a majority in value of the paid-up share capital held by all of them or not less than one-tenth of such of the paid-up share capital of the company as is referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (4), whichever is less; or
(c) in the case of a company not having a share capital, by such of the requisitionists as represent not less than one-tenth of the total voting power of all the members of the company referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4).
Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, the Board shall, in the case of a meeting at which a resolution is to be proposed as a special resolution, be deemed not to have duly convened the meeting if they do not give such notice thereof as is required by sub-section (2) of section 189.
(7) A meeting called under sub-section (6) by the requisitionists or any of them -
(a) shall be called in the same manner, as nearly as possible, as that in which meetings are to be called by the Board; but
(b) shall not be held after the expiration of three months from the date of the deposit of the requisition.
Explanation : Nothing in clause (b) shall be deemed to prevent a meeting duly commenced before the expiry of the period of three months aforesaid, from adjourning to some day after the expiry of that period.
(8) Where two or more persons hold any shares or interest in a company jointly, a requisition, or a notice calling a meeting, signed by one or some only of them shall, for the purposes of this section, have the same force and effect as if it had been signed by all of them.
(9) Any reasonable expenses incurred by the requisitionists by reason of the failure of the Board duly to call a meeting shall be repaid to the requisitionists by the company; and any sum so repaid shall be retained by the company out of any sums due or to become due from the company by way of fees or other remuneration for their services to such of the directors as were in default.
|
|
|
Re:Greatest good of greatest number - Bentham
by
Rajesh Kumar
, Scorecard
: 4001
Actually once upon a time marriage was a social relation- so family decided to whom to marry, participation of society in marriage, no divorce provision.......... Now it is a legal relationship of two individuals. I think, leave the society, if the relationship can keep two persons happy- i think it is serving its purpose.
|
|
Re:Women Reservation Bill
by
Arup Kumar Gupta Korba, Chattishgarh
, Scorecard
: 1545
who will enlighten you sir, all the lamps are doomed.
|
|
Re:LPO job is Good or bad ?
by
karinamishra
, Scorecard
: 121
LPO is a blooming industry and offers best salary packages. LPO jobs are best for girls. Normally LPOs work in day shifts ie 9 to 6. It provides great exposure. LPO provides yet another opportunity for Law grads. Normally LPOs hire law graduates.
|
|
Re:Greatest good of greatest number - Bentham
by
Arup Kumar Gupta Korba, Chattishgarh
, Scorecard
: 1545
no mr salvi this principle, is not apporpriate in matrimonial field. only two (the spouses) are in question and nothing else.
|
|
Re:Never ever give up !!
by
Adinath@Avinash Patil
, Scorecard
: 4442
EXCLENT
|
|
|
