Reported in : ILR1991KAR1578; 1990(2)KarLJ454
.....as far as the second contention is concerned, it is relevant to notice that each claimant is entitled to maintain his or her claim. the fact that the claim petition filed by some of the claimants has been disposed of without clubbing the claim petition filed by the other claimants, does not take away the right of other claimants to claim compensation nor does it take away the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide the claim petition as long as the persons who are liable to pay the compensation are made parties to the petition and the claim of the claimants has remained unsettled. the question of res judicata also does not arise. of course, there will be a possibility of conflicting findings with regard to the essential and common issues as to rash and negligent driving and dependency of the claimants on the deceased. to what extent those conflicts are to be resolved need not be gone into in this case because such a conflict does not arise in this case. the award is passed for a sum of rs. 25,000/- in mvc no. 257/1981. the compensation now awarded to the claimant in mvc no. 410/1981 is out of the aforesaid sum of rs. 25,000/-awarded in mvc no. 257 of 1981. it has come.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1990(2)ALT704; 1992CriLJ1614
.....of which the contravention continues or whether the bar imposed under s. 376(c), cr.p.c. of 1973 applies and the appeal is not maintainable. 2. the facts of the case are : the agricultural market committee, nizamabad, filed a complaint against the two petitioners herein alleging that the said petitioners obtained a licence for conducting business in the area of the market committee and in pursuance of the licence they purchased the agricultural produce which came into the market at nizamabad on various dates i.e., with effect from 15-1-1983 to 16-12-1984, and thus they are liable to pay the market fee of rs. 52,806-40 ps. on the purchases made by them. the market committee called upon the accused through a show cause notice dated 18-2-1984 (ex. p.4) issued to the first petitioner to pay the above market fee. on their failure to pay this market fee, another show cause notice dated 25-2-1984 was also issued, but the same was returned. thus the petitioners have voluntarily and deliberately failed to pay the market fee, thereby contravening the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the (a.p. & l.s.) market act, 1966 (for short 'the act') and the rules framed thereunder......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [1990]186ITR226(AP)
.....lord scarman (p. 1022) raised a point as to whether the person whose money was seized would not be entitled to damages. lord scarman (p. 1022), in fact, stated that 'telling the victim (of seizure) that, long after the event, he may go to law and recover damages if he can prove that the revenue acted unlawfully is cold comfort - even if he can afford it'. however, as no defence of sovereign act or an act of state has been raised, it is not necessary for us to go into this aspect of the matter. 10. we shall now deal with the position under the income-tax act, 1961, and briefly refer to the statutory provisions. it is to be seen that section 132 deals with the powers and procedure 'for search and seizure'. the power can be exercised if the competent authority has, in consequence of information in his possession, reason to believe that any person is in possession of any money, etc., and such money either wholly or partly represents income or property which has not been, or would not be, disclosed for the purposes of the act. in such cases, the authorised officer can enter and search any building, etc., where he has reason to suspect that such money, etc., is kept. he can 'seize'.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1991ACJ344; AIR1990MP354
.....it would be seen that the repealing provision does not prejudice or affect the right of appeal which a party may have had under the repealed act. 5. under section 110-d of the repealed act a person aggrieved by an award of claims tribunal subject to amount in dispute in the appeal being not less than rs. 2000/- had an unrestricted right of appeal without any condition as to pre-deposit of the awarded amount. in lakhmichand v. mitthu (air 1984 madh pra 112) (supra) this court was dealing with section 96(4) of c.p.c. inserted by section 33 of code of civil procedure (amendment act, 1976). newly inserted provision barred appeal except on question of law from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by court of small causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit did not exceed rs. 3,000/-. relying on four division bench cases of this court in chulu-ram v. bhagatram (air 1980 madh pra 16) (supra); shesh kumar v. kesheo narayan, 1980 mplj 335 : (air 1980 mad pra 166); sitaram v. chaturao, (1981 jab lj 171) (supra) and dattatray v. mangal (air 1983 madh pra 82) (supra) as also kashibai v. mahadu, air 1965 sc 703 shri g. p. singh, c.j. observed.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR1991Ori145
.....and whose duties are not those of a mere partisan agentbut of an impartial judge to dispense equal justice to all parties and to decide law and facts involved in the matters submitted with a view to determine and finally end the controversy. after the independence of the country when the state undertook several developmental activities like construction of roads and bridges, construction of buildings for locating different offices, construction of erection works and such other projects involving expenses to the tune of thousand and thousand crores of rupees, those works were naturally required to be done by engaging contractors. almost all those contracts contained an arbitration clause in the agreement for resolving the disputes between the parties in relation to execution of the contract in question by referring the disputes to an arbitrator. the usual phrase in almost all the contracts was that the arbitrator should be an officer of the rank of a superintending engineer unconnected with the work. such an arbitration clause had been engrafted in the contract with the obvious object that in case of any dispute, the grievances could be quickly settled up by the process of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR1991Ker1
.....defendant. in this notice, 1st defendant has made it abundantly clear that he was not prepared to complete the transaction and he cancelled the contract in favour of the plaintiff and that he was bent upon to sell the property to another. on receipt of ext. a7, plaintiff sent ext. a10 notice, wherein it was categorically stated that the advance was paid, that the 1st defendant permitted the plaintiff to continue his business in the ground-floor and accordingly, he was continuing his business in the same room. it was also pointed out that the key was always with the plainitff and that it was using the same key that he was opening the shop room. it was further stated that the piece-goods were still in the shop room and he was still continuing the business there, that there was no necessity to remove his belongings and that the 1st defendant had no right to cancel the contract and the cancellation was invalid. it was also pointed out that he had already filed a suit for an injunction, restraining the plaintff from alienating the property and from putting the building into the possession of strangers, that he was prepared to pay the balance of consideration within the stipulated.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1990)2GLR1232
.....cabins. the said work was to be completed within 120 days. the petitioner constructed three cabins but the work done by him was not found to be satisfactory, and therefore, on 7-8-1979 the panchayat had informed him not to carry out further construction work. the panchayat took possession of the three cabins which were already constructed by the petitioner. as against the claim of rs. 21,000/- for constructing the said three cabins, the petitioner was paid rs. 15,000/-. after about five years, the panchayat gave notice dated 22-5-1984 to the petitioner calling upon him to hand over possession of the three cabins and to refund the excess amount paid to him. the panchayat then filed regular civil suit no. 24 of 1984 in the court of civil judge (j.d.) for obtaining the same reliefs. the civil court held that the panchayat has failed to prove the work done by the petitioner was sub-standard. the civil court also did not believe the panchayat's case that possession of three cabins was not handed over to it by the petitioner in 1979. the civil court, therefore, dismissed the suit on 28-5-1986. neither the petitioner nor the panchayat had taken any action thereafter against each other.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1991)1CALLT166(HC)
.....respondents. the only point for consideration is that although sm. anjali ghosh has obtained all the pecuniary benefits in terms of the interim order of this court, the staff pattern has not been changed enabling her to get the benefit of working in the language group. it has, however, been brought to the notice of this court that in the meantime both the petitioners in their respective cases have improved their qualification by obtaining m.a. degree and there is no bar for them to receive the salary on the m.a. scale and to get the benefit on the revised scale. a dispute has come that in order to accommodate sm. anjali ghosh, the interest of sm. nirmala roy has been affected and there is no reason to change the staff pattern to the prejudice of sm. nirmala roy for accommodating sm. anjali ghosh.4. having gone through the resolution, this court does not appreciate that the school authority can certainly suggest the change of the staff pattern, if the law permits and even by changing that such staff pattern, if the law permits and even by changing that such staff pattern any person's interest may not be affected. here, in the instant case, it appears that by the proposed.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1991)LC780Tri(Mum.)bai
.....entry for the same at serial no. 14 in para 3 of appendix 9.8. the appellants themselves have admitted that they have imported the said item for manufacture of the pharmaceutical products namely piperazine citrate and piperazine hexahydrate, used for destroying roundworms in human intestine.9. the only point that is agitated, as mentioned above, is that the same is not of pharmaceutical grade or standard, all the same, it is clear that the same has to be used in preparation of a pharmaceutical product.10. what the policy has intended by "drugs" in para 3 of appendix 9, has nowhere been specified, except in para 218(4) of ch. 21 of the policy, where it is provided that the names of the drugs mentioned in various appendiees specified therein, including appendix 9, refer to the respective active ingredients or as they are commonly known, and they include salts, and esters of the same. in the condensed chemical dictionary (tenth edition) revised by gestner g hawley, "drug" is defined as a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease or to affect the structure or function of body". as, out of proportion use of some substance, which.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1990)(29)ECC204
.....were imported by them from japan. the bill of entry was separately filed in respect of these items only at the instance of the department. while in fact the import of these materials under one consignment is reflected in the documents of imports, they have stated that anti-corrosive coating compound has been supplied by the supplier along with condenser tube for coating the tubes after they had been fitted in. they have submitted that the accessories (condition) rules, 1963 do not lay down any condition that rules are applicable only if there is one invoice and one bill of entry. the rules merely say that the goods should be imported along with the article. in this case goods accompanied the consignment in the same steamer. instead of including impugned goods in the main invoice, the supplier had raised a second invoice of no commercial value for customs purposes only. they have submitted that impugned goods were imported along with the article viz. condenser pipes, and they are covered under accessories (condition) rules, 1963. they have submitted that the rules not only covered accessories but also spare parts and maintenance and repairing implements. impugned goods serve as.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT