Facts:

The appeals were filed against a common judgment of a learned single Judge of Delhi High Court. The question involved was whether the refusal of a person summoned under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, to comply with the directions under the summons would attract the provisions of Section 56 of the Act.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 40 and Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, specifically whether the failure to obey the summons issued under Section 40 constituted a contravention of the Act and whether it would be punishable under Section 56.

Held:

The Court held that the summons issued under Section 40, if not obeyed, must be considered a contravention of the provisions of the Act and, at the very least, a contravention of a direction issued under the Act. Such contravention would fall within the ambit of Section 56 of the Act. The Court rejected the notion that Section 56 is limited to violations involving a specific amount or value and emphasized the purposive interpretation of the Act.

Decision: The impugned judgments of the learned single Judge of Delhi High Court were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Court directed that the complaint proceedings may be proceeded with in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The appeals challenge a common order in O.P. Nos. 12184, 14840, 14686, 15700, 17258, 18398, and 20913/97. The dispute arises from the interpretation of Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, regarding the power of the administrator to enroll new members after superseding the Committee of Management.

Issues:

The primary issue revolves around whether an administrator, appointed during the supersession of the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society, has the authority to enroll new members.

Held:

The High Court held that the administrator or a Committee appointed during supersession lacks the power to enroll new members.

The argument that the decision in K. Shantharaj's case is not applicable due to differences in language between the Karnataka Act and the Kerala Act was considered. The Court, after careful analysis, finds that the nature of the function or power exercised is crucial, irrespective of linguistic differences.

The Court emphasizes that the purpose of appointing an administrator is to rectify defaults and ensure the proper functioning of the society, not to alter its composition.

The judgment reiterates the view from K. Shantharaj's case, stating that an administrator or a special officer does not possess the power to enroll new members during supersession.

Facts:

The respondent bank filed a winding-up petition against the appellant company.

A compromise was reached, but the appellant failed to meet the terms, leading to a revival of the winding-up petition.

The company proposed a settlement to the court, which was rejected, resulting in the winding-up order.

During the appeal against the winding-up order, the appellant filed a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Issues:

Interpretation of Section 22 concerning the suspension of winding-up proceedings.

Applicability of Section 22 post the passing of a winding-up order.

Jurisdiction of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) after a winding-up order.

Held:

The High Court erred in interpreting Section 22, neglecting the words "to be proceeded with further."

Section 22 remains applicable even after a winding-up order, preventing further proceedings under the Companies Act.

The winding-up order is not the culmination but the commencement of the process, as clarified by Section 441 of the Companies Act.

The appellant's move to invoke the Sick Industrial Companies Act was not malafide; the Board of Directors retains powers for rehabilitation despite liquidator appointment.

The Board's dismissal of the Section 15(1) application was not based on merit but on the timing of the winding-up order.

Facts:

The original settlor, through a Gift Deed, entrusted the right of management of a temple property under a Kattalai grant to his second wife. She, in turn, appointed A as the manager through a General Power of Attorney and later as the successor-trustee through a will. A executed two wills on the same day in 1955, one bequeathing management rights to B (son-in-law) and the other bequeathing personal properties to his sons.

Issues:

Validity of the first will.

Legality of entrusting management rights to a stranger.

Interpretation of the settlor's intentions regarding passing on rights to lineal descendants.

Compliance with the scheme of administration prepared in 1945 under Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.

Held:

The court affirmed the validity of the first will, stating that it was duly executed. The presence of B during the execution did not create suspicious circumstances. A, who executed another will favoring his sons on the same day, demonstrated testamentary capacity. The court emphasized that the attesting witnesses were examined in proof of the will.

The Kattalai properties were not personal properties of A but endowed properties belonging to the temple. The settlor had the right to entrust management rights to a capable person, and A had the authority to will away these rights to B. The court highlighted that the first will was not unauthorized or illegal.

The recitals of the Gift Deed indicated that the settlor did not create a life interest or widow's estate in favor of his second wife. She had the independent right to manage the properties, and her appointment of A as successor-trustee was valid. A had the right to will away the trusteeship, and there was no requirement to give preference to his own sons.

While the scheme of administration prepared in 1945 was not highlighted during the trial, it was deemed binding. A, as the General Power of Attorney holder and later the legatee, was bound by the scheme. B, as the legatee under the first will, would also be bound by the scheme, and any further entrustment would be subject to it.

Facts:

Respondent No. 1 is the owner of omnibus bearing registration No. GRQ 8403.

The vehicle was not used or kept for use during 1-7-1995 to 31-3-1996.

Respondent filed a claim for a refund of tax for the said period, which was denied.

Appellant issued a demand notice for composite tax and penalty.

Special Civil Application filed in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 3A(5).

Issues:

Whether Section 3A(5) is ultra vires, being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, specifically the requirement to prove "reasons beyond control" for non-use exceeding three months.

Held:

The tax imposed is compensatory for the use of roads and, therefore, not applicable to vehicles not actively using the roads.

The requirement to prove "reasons beyond control" for non-use exceeding three months is deemed invalid.

The Act lacks justification for such stringent conditions when existing provisions are sufficient to prevent tax evasion.

The condition creates unnecessary distinctions, applying only to omnibuses and not to other vehicles.

The court dismisses the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision.

Facts:

The police case alleges a criminal conspiracy between 11 accused, including J. Jayalalitha, to import coal for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at an inflated price, causing substantial financial loss to the state.

The Special Judge discharged J. Jayalalitha, stating insufficient evidence to frame charges against her.

The missing pages from the Current File, containing objections raised by the Government Secretary, became a focal point in the judgment.

Issues:

Whether there is reasonable ground to believe in a criminal conspiracy.

The significance of missing pages in the Current File and their impact on the knowledge of J. Jayalalitha.

Held:

The court examined the evidence, including government orders, letters, and notes, to establish a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy.

The missing pages with objections were crucial, and their removal raised suspicions.

The court presumed that J. Jayalalitha was aware of the serious consequences of the coal import deal on the state exchequer.

The court set aside the order discharging J. Jayalalitha and directed the Special Judge to proceed against her as an accused.

Decision: The appeal is disposed of, and the court orders the continuation of the trial against J. Jayalalitha. The prosecution can treat the examination-in-chief as part of the evidence, and J. Jayalalitha has the right to cross-examine witnesses. Conditions for her exemption from personal appearance are outlined, subject to revocation if not followed.

FACTS:

Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunction against defendants establishing a flour mill and disturbing plaintiffs' exclusive use of a pathway.

Trial court decreed the suit, granting exclusive right of user over the pathway to the plaintiffs.

First appellate court modified the decree, holding the pathway as a common pathway for both parties.

Plaintiffs filed a second appeal and simultaneously applied under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC for permission to withdraw the suit with leave to file a fresh suit.

ISSUES:

Whether the High Court erred in entertaining the application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC before admitting the second appeal.

Whether the High Court properly exercised discretion under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC.

HELD:

The High Court erred in entertaining the application before admitting the second appeal.

The High Court did not properly exercise discretion under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC as it failed to consider relevant aspects, and its approach was erroneous.

DECISION: The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's order granting permission for withdrawal of the suit with leave to file a fresh suit is set aside. The High Court is directed to proceed to dispose of the second appeal in accordance with the law.

REFERRED CASES:

Bakhtawar Singh another Vs. Sada Kaur and another, (1996) 6 AD 700 : AIR 1996 SC 3488 : (1996) 8 JT 407 : (1997) 115 PLR 678 : (1996) 6 SCALE 222 : (1996) 11 SCC 167 : (1996) 5 SCR 235 Supp

The Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple Vs. R. Sathyamoorthy and Others, AIR 1999 SC 958 : (1999) 1 JT 343 : (1999) 1 SCALE 358 : (1999) 3 SCC 115 : (1999) 1 SCR 485 : (1999) AIRSCW 575 : (1999) 1 Supreme 406

Facts:

Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation issued a tender for Octroi collection.

M/s. Millenium Infrastructure challenged conditions in the High Court but later withdrew.

Tenders submitted, and the Commissioner postponed opening due to the writ petition.

The Commissioner later opened tenders, waived Clause 6(a), awarded to M/s. Monarch Infrastructure.

M/s. Konark Infrastructure filed a writ petition challenging the award.

Issues:

Validity of the government's order deleting Clause 6(a) under Section 451.

Compliance of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure with tender conditions.

Alleged malafides of the Commissioner in favoring M/s. Monarch Infrastructure.

High Court's decision to set aside the contract award and order a fresh tender process.

Held:

The High Court was justified in setting aside the award due to the deletion of Clause 6(a) post-tender submission.

M/s. Konark Infrastructure's allegations of malafides are insignificant as the award to M/s. Monarch Infrastructure was annulled.

The High Court's direction for a fresh tender process is justified to ensure fairness and wider participation.

The court rejects the restoration of the original conditions and bids, upholding the High Court's decision for a fresh tender.

Public interest is served by allowing the completion of the tender process, accepting the highest offer from M/s. Monarch Infrastructure.

Facts:

The Rajasthan State Electricity Board appealed against a judgment in a suit filed by Associated Stone Industries.

The plaintiff, engaged in excavating stones, sought exemption from electricity duty for the energy consumed in pumping water from the mines.

Notifications dated 26.3.1962, 2.3.1963, and 1.11.1965 were crucial in determining the exemptions and rates of duty.

The plaintiff argued that pumping water was integral to the mining process, while the defendant contended otherwise.

Issues:

Whether pumping water from a mine could be considered part of the manufacturing process, thus qualifying for exemptions under relevant notifications.

Held:

The Court noted the withdrawal of exemption for mines in the 1963 and 1965 notifications.

The plaintiff's claim that energy was used for pumping water for mining activity was considered but rejected.

The Court emphasized the commercial sense of the term "manufacture" and the absence of a specific definition in the Act.

It was established that the excavation and processing of stones into slabs did not constitute manufacturing as no new, commercially distinct product emerged.

The Court referred to previous judgments, including Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., emphasizing that manufacturing involves a complete transformation into a commercially different article.

Pumping water, excavation, and stone processing were deemed not integrally connected in the manufacturing of goods.

The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit for exemption or reduced duty was dismissed.