Reported in : I(2004)ACC499; 2003(4)ALT588
.....2-2-1999. no doubt, the learned counsel representing the government had explained certain circumstances under which the mistake occurred. but, the fact remains that the amount was deposited on 9-10-2002. subsequent thereof on 24-1-2003 it was represented that there was urgency in the matter since the claimant was trying to withdraw the amount. hence on 24-1-2003 this court passed the following order:'heard both the learned counsel. learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant had submitted that the amount was deposited after the matter was admitted. sri narasimha chari, k. had raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the appeal itself, on the ground that making deposit is a condition precedent and the appeal should be accompanied by a certificate issued by the competent authority. however, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that there is urgency in the matter and there is likelihood of the amount being withdrawn by the 1st respondent- claimant in the meanwhile. in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim stay of disbursement of amount only for a period of two weeks. notice. post next thursday i.e......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2004ACJ2109; 2003(3)ALT267
.....regarding the evidence of r.w.1 that he stopped the vehicle for some time near nalgonda cross-roads, due to the red signal, the learned tribunal observed that there is no need for a vehicle to stop at nalgonda cross-roads due to traffic red signal, if that vehicle was proceeding towards dilsukhnagar. the learned tribunal observed in its judgment that the tribunal takes judicial notice of the traffic regulations. these observations are made by the learned tribunal overlooking the evidence of r.w.1 why he stopped his bus near nalgonda cross-roads. he deposed in his cross examination that some of the buses going towards nagarjunasagar, were standing ahead of his bus and therefore he could not proceed towards dilsukhnagar. when some other vehicles, which have to take a turn towards nagarjunasagar side due to red signal, it is highly probable that the r.t.c., driver was not able to proceed further towards dilsukhnagar. this evidence elicited in the cross examination of r.w.1, missed the attention of the learned tribunal while appreciating the evidence of r.w.1. i therefore, feel satisfied that the claimants failed to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(2)ALD769; 2003(2)ALT655
.....appellate authority, valid reasons arerecorded in support thereof. the judgmentsrelied on by the learned counsel are nothelpful having regard to the facts andcircumstances of this case. there cannotbe any dispute that bona fide requirementis a recurring cause of action as held bythe apex court in n.r. narayan swamy v.b. francis jagan (supra). in the instantcase, it is not said that there is no causeof action for the landlord (sic landlady).cause of action with regard to plea of bona fide requirement is examined with reference to the present eviction proceedings only and it is held that ground of bona fide requirement is not proved. merely because the earlier proceedings in rcc no. 83 of 1981 are referred, it cannot be said that such finding is bad. the appellate authority has examined the cause of action with reference to the filing of the present eviction proceedings only and held that there is no bona fide requirement. the judgment relied on in n.r. narayan swamy v. b. francis jagan (supra) is also not helpful to the petitioner, as much as no presumption is drawn with regard to the capacity of the landlady and her husband for starting business. no extraneous grounds are.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(3)ALD374
.....by an order dated 31.12.1997 having observed that the appeal was disposed of in the absence of mr. rajeev indhani and also having taken note of the fact that r2, r3 and r4 died during the pendency of the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 7.8.1996 on condition that the land losers pays an amount of rs. 3,000/- to ms. swarna reddy, the counsel for the government towards costs within three weeks from that date. their lordships further directed that on payment of the cost, the appeal shall be restored to the file for hearing before regular court hearing the first appeals. thereafter, we understand that the said amount was paid and the appeal was restored to file. nearly five years thereafter, the appeal was posted before this court on 14.11.2002 and having noticed that in spite of the orders of the court, the legal representatives of r2, r3 and r4 were not brought on record, we adjourned the matter by giving two weeks time. thereafter, the present applications were filed.4. the counsel for the respondents filed counters contending that there is an abnormal delay of about 15 years in filing these applications and the learned advocate general did not explain the delay.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(4)ALT244; (2003)185CTR(AP)219; [2003]263ITR62(AP)
.....arising out of the tribunal's order dated april 9, 1991, in i. t. a. nos. 194 to 202/hyd of 1988, for the opinion of this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was justified in law/in holding that the share income of the assessee's minor children was assessable in the firm under section 182(3) of the income-tax act and that it could not be included in the hands of the non-resident assessee in his individual assessment under section 64(1)(iii) of the act ?'2. master rajesh kumar and master kartik kumar, minor sons of b. narasimha rao, have been admitted to the benefits of partnership in the firm of b. rajesh and company, hyderabad. the said b. narasimha rao and his two minor children were, at the relevant time, residing in united states of america and treated as 'non-residents' for the purpose of the indian income-tax act, 1922.3. the income-tax officer assessed the share income of the minors derived from the firm in the hands of the parent (assessee) under section 64(1)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'). the assessee preferred appeals challenging the correctness of the order passed by the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)668; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)499; 2003CriLJ4416
.....magistrate rightly held that since the food article i.e. mirchi powder did not conform to the standard prescribed under law, irrespective of the fact that it is injurious to health or not, the accused is liable to be convicted. the learned sessions judge, after considering the evidence of p.ws. 1 to 3, the analyst report and the procedure followed by p.w. 1 in taking the samples etc., came to a conclusion that the trial court rightly held that the food inspector inspected the shop of the accused on 31-12-1985, took the samples of mirchi powder from the shop of the accused and those samples were found to be adulterated as per the report of the public analyst and accordingly, agreed with the view expressed by the trial court that p.w. 1 followed the procedure prescribed under the rules in taking the samples and in obtaining the analyst report. after carefully going through the evidence, bothoral and documentary and the judgment of the courts below, i do not find any substance in the repeated plea of the respondent-accused on this point.point no. 2:11. p.w. 1 obtained ex. p-20 sanction order issued by the director of food (health) authority on 7-4-1986 and it: reads as.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : III(2003)ACC559
.....regarding the evidence of r.w. 1, that he stopped the vehicle for some time near nalgonda cross-roads, due to the red signal, the learned tribunal observed that there is no need for a vehicle to stop, at nalgonda cross-roads due to traffic red signal, if that vehicle was proceeding towards dilsukhnagar. the learned tribunal observed in its judgment that the tribunal takes judicial notice of the traffic regulations. these observations are made by the learned tribunal overlooking the evidence of r.w. 1 why he stopped this bus near nalgonda cross-roads. he deposed in this cross-examination that some of the buses going towards nagarjunasagar, were standing ahead of his bus? and, therefore, he could not proceed towards dilsukhnagar. when some bther vehicles, which have to take a turn towards nagarjunasagar side due to red signal, it is highly probable that the r.t.c. driver was not able to proceed further towards dilsukhnagar. this evidence elicited in the cross-examination of r.w. 1, missed the attention of the learned tribunal while appreciating the evidence of r.w. 1. i, therefore, feel satisfied that the claimants failed to prove that the accident took place due to rash and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(2)AWC916
.....it is stated that the possession had already been given to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and the auction has been confirmed but these relevant facts was suppressed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition and by such suppression the petitioner obtained the interim order dated 1.5.2000. the interim order was obtained without arraying respondent nos. 5 and 6 as parties. 12. in paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner moved a highly belated application dated 7.8.1998 for recalling the order dated 29.9.1995. the competent authority allowed the said application by order dated 10.3.1999. this order has become final and never been challenged in any competent court of law. in paragraph 24, it is stated that possession has already been taken of the land in question by a.d.a. and it has been given to the respondent nos. 5 and 6. in paragraph 30, it is stated that the auction was confirmed on 10.4.2000 and possession was given thereafter to the respondent nos. 5 and 6. 13. we have carefully perused the affidavits in this case and heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. it is evident from a perusal of annexure-c.a. 1-a of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(2)AWC1157; (2003)1UPLBEC682
.....of bogie no. 17 due to which the dacoits entered inside the bogie and looted the passengers.the petitioner never took any action to stop this and in fact, he cooperated with the dacoits. a first information report under section 397 was registered against the petitioner and others in which the petitioner and the two home guards were called for identification but the petitioner threatened the eye-witnesses and hence, no one came to give evidence. the petitioner also did not do the identification. since it was not possible to take action under section 7 of the indian police act due to the petitioner's terror, the s.p. railway utilising his power under section 8(2)(b) terminated the services of the petitioner.section 8(2)(b) of the act states as follows : '(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.'6. the autnorities concerned were of the view that the petitioner was involved in the dacolty and was hand in gloves with the dacoits and due to the terror of the petitioner, nobody is prepared to give evidence.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(2)AWC1168b; (2003)2UPLBEC1065
.....as stenographer and the said 'test' revealed that he was not suitable/competent to hold the post.6. the impugned order further takes notice of the fact that the then district judge, sri brijendra singh, ignoring the said report of the then special judge (sri abhimanyu kumar) appointed the petitioner.7. another circumstances, creating serious doubt about the 'fairness' in the matter is that the then district judge sri bijendra kumar made this appointment only 14 days before his retirement. the impugned order contains serious allegations against the then district judge--sri bijendra singh.8. we have no doubt, considering the circumstance mentioned in the impugned order, that the then district judge was guilty of meddling and tampering the record which warranted serious action against him for the charge of gross abuse of his authority/office.9. the district judge, etah, while passing the order, did consider the contention of the petitioner that he was given no notice before passing the impugned order. 'ex dolo malo non, oritur octio'--a right of action does not arise out of fraud is the answer to the aforesaid contention of the petitioner.10. concept of fairness in administrative.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT