Reported in : 1988(14)DRJ27
.....bricks, mortar and the moulds and the malba which were lying at the site when the above petition was drafted and presented to the court. on these facts it has been prayed that action for contempt of court be taken against them.(2) notice to show cause as to why action for contempt of court be not taken against the respondents was served on respondents no. 1 to 6. respondent no. 2 and 3 who are the officers of the dda have filed counter-affidavits to the affidavit of the petitioners wherein they denied the allegations of the petitioners regarding the alleged demolition action having been taken by them. they stated to the effect that neither the dda took any demolition action, as alleged nor they have been a parly to any such action. respondents no. 4 to 6 filed a detailed reply to the petition. all the three officers of the municipal corporation of delhi i.e. respondents no. 4 to 6 have also filed their individual affidavits controverting the allegations made in the petition.(3) now the petitioners in para 18 of their petition have themselves stated that they have filed petitions for punishment of respondents for their dis-obedience of the injunction order granted in the said.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR1988Ker161
.....was dismissed by the lower court on the ground that a decree passed under order viii, rule 10 c.p.c, is not an ex pane decree and a petition under order ix rule 13 c.p.c. will not lie to set aside such a decree rule 10 of order viii c.p.c. as it stood prior to the amendment by the civil p.c. amendment act 104 of 1976 reads : --'where any party from whom a written statement is so required fails to present the same within the time fixed by the court, the court may pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit'.3. an order under rule 10 was appealable under section 104 read with order 43 rule 1(b) c.p.c. the amended rule reads : --'order viii rule 10 -- procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by court :-- where any party from whom a written statement (is required under rule 1 or rule 9) fails to present the same within the time (permitted or fixed by the court, as the case maybe, the court shall) pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit (and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up)'.4. a right of appeal provided under order 43 rule.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [1988]169ITR334(Ker)
.....cases would only be helpful guides and not binding directives. it is obvious that the validity of a trust would essentially be dependent upon facts and materials which have a bearing on the origin and constitution of that trust.7. the legal validity of one such trust--the parthas trust--arises in these references.8. parthas trust was constituted by an indenture dated august 4, 1971. j. ramachandr ammal figured therein as the founder. there were four trustees and 28 beneficiaries. the parties were intimately connectedwith two trading firms, parthas textiles, kottayam, and parthas textiles at attingal.9. the business of the firms was taken over by the trust under subsequent agreements. the agreement dated august 17, 1971, concerned immovable properties. possession of the immovable properties was delivered to the trust. no sale deed, however, had been executed as regards those properties.10. the trust had its first assessment under the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), during the assessment year 1972-73. a fundamental and serious question arose for consideration and decision : about the existence of a valid trust.11. the income-tax officer took the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR1988Guj42; (1987)2GLR1082
.....refusal of the performance. pointing out the averment in para 8 of the plaint, the learned judge observed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the fact that the defendants had committed a breach of the contract sometime in may 1982 or, in any case, on 24th dec. 1982 and hence the suit had to be brought on or before 24th dec. 1985. stating that it was settled law that an amendment, if and when granted, relates back to the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, if the amendment application dated 5th sept. 1986 is granted a valuable right which had accrued to the defendants for non-suiting the plaintiff would be lost because the application for amendment was made after 24th dec. 1985. on these considerations the amendment application was rejected by his order dated 19th sept. 1986. thereafter on 26th sept. 1986 the learned trial judge rejected the plaint under o. 7, r. 11 (a) of the civil p.c. on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action. he also negatived the plea that the suit in regard to the relief for damages was maintainable on the ground that the relief for damages was claimed in lieu of specific performance of the contract and not alternatively.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [1988]170ITR491(Raj)
.....to the appellate assistant commissioner against the income-tax officer's order under section 46(1) due to non-payment of tax (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied upon the assessee by the income-tax officer under section 46(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ?' regarding assessment year 1957-58 : '(1) whether the tribunal was competent to entertain the assessee's appeal particularly when no appeal could lie to the appellate assistant commissioner against the income-tax officer's order under section 46(1) due to non-payment of tax ? (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied upon the assessee by the income-tax officer under section 46(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922?' regarding assessment year 1958-59 : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied by the income-tax officer under section 221(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 2. one of the questions relating to the cancellation of penalty is common for all the three assessment years while.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1987)65CTR(Raj)313; [1988]170ITR500(Raj)
.....under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, isat the instance of the revenue to decide the following question of law, namely:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally right in directing the income-tax officer to make two separate assessments, one for the period prior to the change and the other for the period after the change in the constitution of the firm, notwithstanding the fact that it was a change in the constitution of the firm as contemplated under section 187(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?'2. the relevant assessment year is 1977-78. the assessee was a partnership firm constituted by a deed of partnership dated january 1, 1976. it consisted of five partners, of whom one died on march 20, 1976, during the accounting period of the relevant assessment year. thereafter, the firm was reconstituted from the same date by executing another partnership, deed on april 14, 1976, the question for decision before the income-tax officer was whether, in these circumstances, it was merely a case of change in the constitution of the firm governed by section 187 of the act, so that only one assessment had to be made for the entire period.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1988CriLJ1054; 1987WLN(UC)713
.....be fully established:1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established.2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.4. they should exclude very possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.9. since these conditions are not fulfilled in the present case, in our opinion the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. in the result, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned sessions judge, jhunjhunu is set aside, and the accused-appellant bhanwar singh, who is in jail shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987(2)WLN324
.....quoting any particular instance.6. in her writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that the detaining authority did not apply its mind and the facts were not placed before her in right perspective, and the authorities have mis-led and mis-represented her by concealing material facts that in some of those cases, the detenue had been acquitted and, therefore, his detention order is liable to be quashed, and in this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on sita ram somani v. state of rajasthan and ors. : 1986crilj860 .7. it has been submitted that in the first instance quoted in the grounds as above the detenue was charge-sheeted only under section 324 i.p.c. and not under section 307 i.p.c. and further that the detenue was acquitted in that case on 13-8-1985, and that it has been wrongly mentioned in the grounds of detention that the matter is still pending in the court.8. similarly in instance no. (ii) also, the detenue has been acquitted as far as back as on 27-11-1982 which fact has been concealed from the detaining authority.9. in instance no. (iii) the detenue was charge-sheeted not under section 394 i.p.c. but under section 324 i.p.c......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987WLN(UC)584
.....and, therefore, the cognizance could not have been taken.2. in order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, a few facts may be mentioned. petitioner smt. shashi rani gupta is the manager of the cinema and petitioner no. 2 alok is her son. the original licence granted to the cinema house called 'alok chitra mandir' was renewed up to march 31, 1984. no application for its renewal was made within the prescribed time and despite the expiry of the licence, the cinema continued. it appears that some notice was issued to the petitioner not to run the cinema without renewal of the licence and, thereupon on march 28, 1985, the petitioner no. 1 applied for the renewal of the licence. this renewal was refused by the learned collector, the authority under section 5 of the act, by his order dated july 2, 1985. the ground for refusal was that a clearance certificate had not been produced from the authority under the entertainment, tax act. after that, a complaint was lodged against the petitioners before the chief judicial magistrate, churu for offences under section 8(1) and 8(2) of the act. in between, it appears that petitioner no. 1 filed an appeal before.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1987)0CALLT551(HC),92CWN453
.....30% of the value of the press to the tune of rs. 60,000 was to be paid as advance alongwith the order and the balance was to be paid after satisfactory test-run at the works of the appellant but before effecting delivery. the offer was accepted by the respondent on 9.7.71, when formal order no. 101 dated 9.7.71 was placed for supply of the press as per the description and specification given in that order. the specification was changed regarding the size of the plate in that order. the time of delivery was also mentioned to be six months from the date of the order. a cheque for rs. 18,000 was enclosed along with that order towards 30% advance. the terms of payment, as per that order, were the payment of 60% after satisfactory test run at the works of the appellant and 10% after one month's successful performance of the press in the works of the respondent. the appellant failed to deliver the machine within the stipulated time. on 14.10.72, the appellant wrote to the plaintiff explaining the delay in delivering the machine. the delay was stated to be due to the difficulties in obtaining cast iron platens suitable for withstanding the steam pressure. by that letter the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT