Facts:

A Matador carrying cement was seized, and proceedings were initiated under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act.

The owner applied for interim release, granted on furnishing a bank guarantee.

The order was challenged, and a Single Judge directed release accepting a reduced bank guarantee.

State appealed, Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

Issues:

Whether the fine under the second proviso to Section 6A(1) is based on the market value of the confiscated vehicle or the market price of the essential commodity it carried.

Held:

The objective of the Essential Commodities Act is to deter illegal dealing in essential commodities.

Section 6A provides for seizure and confiscation for contravention of orders under Section 3.

The second proviso to Section 6A(1) limits the fine for release of the vehicle to the market price.

The ambiguity arises in determining whether the market price is of the vehicle or the seized essential commodity.

The measure of the fine is related to the market price of the vehicle, consistent with the scheme of Section 7.

The court observed that the analogy with the Customs Act is erroneous as it specifically mentions the market price of the smuggled goods.

The appeals were allowed, and the orders holding that the measure of imposing a fine would be the market price of the essential commodity seized were set aside.

Facts:

The appellants challenged the inclusion of CCA, DA, and HRA in their income for income tax purposes under the Income Tax Act, 1961. These allowances were provided, in addition to their salary and other perquisites. The High Court ruled that these allowances were taxable income, leading to the appeals.

Issues:

The appellant-assessees was that CCA and HRA should not fall under the definition of 'salary' as outlined in Section 17 of the Income Tax Act. They argued that the exhaustive definition of 'salary' was unnecessary if the intention was to include any payment received by the employee in its broadest sense. It was also contended that including these allowances as taxable income would cause hardship to honest employees.

Held:

The Income Tax Act, 1961, is a self-contained Code, and the taxability of any amount or allowance is determined based on the definitions provided in the Act. Section 2(24) gives a wide, inclusive definition of 'income,' and Section 17 provides an exhaustive definition of 'salary,' including perquisites and profits in lieu of salary.

The word 'profits' is used to convey any 'advantage' or 'gain' received by the employee, and the inclusive meaning of 'profits in lieu of salary' includes 'any payment' received by the assessee from the employer, even if it has no connection with the profits of the employer. Therefore, CCA, DA, and HRA are taxable income.

While it is acknowledged that CCA may not be considered 'profit' in common parlance, the definitions given by the Legislature in the context of income tax must be considered. The receipt of CCA, even if it reimburses less than the extra cost incurred by employees, is considered part of income by way of salary and is thus taxable.

Decision: DA, CCA, and HRA are held to be taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. No specific order is passed regarding other allowances like night allowance, tuition fee, leave encashment linked with leave travel concession, and running allowance, as no arguments were presented on these issues.

Facts:

The appellant rented a shop in 1972, with subsequent rent increases and modifications.

Appellant desired changes for business, agreed to increased rent with additional facilities.

Appellant spent on renovations, but respondents failed to provide agreed facilities.

Respondents issued an eviction notice citing non-payment of increased rent.

Appellant contested, citing the understanding of increased rent contingent on additional facilities.

Issues:

Did the appellant wilfully default on rent payments as per Section 10(2)(i)?

Was the eviction notice valid, considering the ongoing dispute over rent and facilities?

Held:

The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority deemed appellant a wilful defaulter without proper consideration.

Explanation I to Section 10(2)(i) states wilful default matures only after 60 days from the notice. The eviction suit was filed within this period, making it premature.

The appellant deposited rent in court as per orders, demonstrating no wilful default.

The disputed rent for the period 1.4.1989 to 31.7.1989 was subject to ongoing adjudication; hence, non-payment during this dispute cannot constitute wilful default.

Wilful default requires intentional, deliberate, calculated, and conscious non-payment. The appellant's conduct and past history did not align with wilful default.

The court concluded that the appellant committed no wilful default; thus, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Facts:

A rent agreement was entered into between the appellant (tenant) and the respondent (landlord) with a specific clause restricting the use of the tenanted premises for a specified business.

The landlord filed an eviction suit, alleging a change in the tenant's business contrary to the terms of the rent agreement.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960.

Whether a change in the tenant's business, not aligned with the specified purpose in the rent agreement, constitutes grounds for eviction.

Held:

The court focused on the specific clause in the rent agreement, emphasizing the use of the word "only" and the explicit restriction on the tenant from carrying on any business other than the one specified.

The appellant argued for a broader interpretation, suggesting that as long as the use remained commercial and did not damage the property, eviction should not be justified. The court rejected this, emphasizing the importance of specific clauses in the agreement.

The court concluded that the use of the words "shall be used by the tenant only" clearly indicated the parties' intent to restrict the use of the premises solely for the specified business and no other.

The judgment supported the lower courts' decision to decree eviction against the appellant based on the change of business contradicting the terms of the agreement.

Facts:

The appellants sought to reject the plaint filed by the respondents under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction, damages, and destruction of material, alleging trade mark infringement. The appellants argued that the suit was barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act as the plaintiff firm was unregistered at the time of filing.

Issues:

Whether Section 69(2) bars a suit by an unregistered firm enforcing statutory or common law rights.

The interpretation of the words 'arising from a contract' in Section 69(2).

Held:

Section 69(2) does not bar a suit by an unregistered firm enforcing statutory rights or common law rights.

The words 'arising from a contract' in Section 69(2) refer to contracts entered into by the firm with third-party defendants in the course of the firm's business transactions.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed as the suit is not barred under Section 69(2).

Facts:

Appellant owned two trucks covered by insurance policies.

Trucks were attacked by Bodo terrorists in Assam, resulting in their destruction and the death of a driver.

The area was declared a "disturbed area" under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, and the TADA Act was enforced.

Issues:

Whether the destruction of trucks by Bodo terrorists qualifies as a "malicious act" under the insurance policy.

Interpretation of Endorsement No. IMT 21, excluding coverage for acts of terrorism.

Held:

The insurance policy covered loss or damage caused by a "malicious act." However, considering the circumstances, especially the area being a "disturbed area," the activity cannot be isolated. The risk arising from terrorist activities, as per TADA and Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, is not covered.

Endorsement IMT 21 excludes coverage for mutiny, terrorism, and acts intending to overthrow the government. The destruction by Bodo terrorists falls within this exclusion.

The second part of Endorsement IMT 21 contemplates individual acts of terrorism or violence. Acts of Bodo activists aimed at overawing the government and causing terror fall under this provision.

Citing TADA Act definitions, terrorism involves acts intending to strike terror, and disruption includes various activities detrimental to the community.

Considering statutory provisions and circumstances, provision (b) of Endorsement IMT 21 did not cover the risk. The respondent is not liable for the loss caused by acts of terrorism.

Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed without costs.

Facts:

The respondent filed a complaint against the appellant regarding damage to his insured vehicle.

The initial complaint was dismissed in default on February 8, 1993.

The respondent's application for restoration was rejected, and the complaint was not restored.

A fresh complaint on the same matter was filed in April 1993 with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Issues:

Whether the dismissal of the first complaint barred the filing of a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action.

Held:

The court clarified that the provisions of Order 9 of the CPC, which deal with the appearance of parties and consequences of non-appearance, are not applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.

The powers available to a civil court under the CPC have been extended to the Consumer Forum only in limited respects.

The court emphasized that the dismissal of the first complaint for non-appearance does not prohibit the filing of a second complaint.

While the court acknowledged the discretion of the Forum to dismiss a complaint for non-prosecution, it also noted that a complaint could be restored on a showing of good cause for non-appearance.

The court cautioned against potential abuse of the legal process and indicated that the Forum could dismiss a fresh complaint on grounds of abuse.

Despite technicalities, the court held that the interest of justice cannot be defeated, especially when the respondent's claim was not contested on its merits.

The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Facts:

Criminal prosecution under various sections of IPC, Essential Commodities Act, and Prevention of Corruption Act.

Accused persons are members of the Managing Committee of cooperative societies and the Chairman of such societies.

Dispute centers around whether they can be considered 'public servants' for the offenses mentioned.

Issues:

Whether a person defined as an "officer" under Clause (20) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is a "public servant" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by virtue of the provisions of Section 161 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, read with Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code?

Assuming provisions of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, are applicable, is the sanction to prosecute such a person required under any of the Clauses of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, capable of being given under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960?

Held:

The legislative intent is clear that officers deemed 'public servants' under Section 161 of the Co-operative Societies Act are so only for the purposes of that Act, not under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Co-operative Societies Act and the Indian Penal Code are not statutes in pari materia, operating in different fields with distinct objects.

Legal fiction in Section 161 of the Co-operative Societies Act does not extend to cover offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

Elected office bearers of the Co-operative Society, as per the definition in R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay, do not come within the purview of 'public servants' under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

Referring to Ramesh Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court reaffirms that a similar provision in the Maharashtra Municipalities Act does not make officers 'public servants' for offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

FACTS:

The complainant, M/S. MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMA P. LTD., entered into an agreement with M/S. BIOLOGICAL E. LTD. for the supply of raw materials. The complainant alleges substantial financial losses due to the accused's failure to fulfill the agreement's terms, coupled with intentional misrepresentations.

ISSUES:

Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose criminal offenses under Sections 415, 418, and 420 of the IPC. Additionally, the court must determine if the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 to quash the complaint is justified.

HELD:

The court highlights the exceptional nature of quashing and the limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It emphasizes that this power should be sparingly used and only in rare cases.

The court outlines the criteria for quashing, stating that if the complaint on its face does not disclose any offense, the court may consider quashing. However, mere breach of a contract does not automatically constitute cheating, and civil and criminal remedies can coexist.

The court discusses the ingredients required to constitute the offense of cheating under Section 415 IPC. It states that fraudulent or dishonest inducement, leading to delivery of property or causing harm, is necessary.

Sections 418 and 420 IPC are also discussed, highlighting that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offense of cheating under Section 420.

The court cites previous decisions emphasizing the need for careful consideration before quashing proceedings, and the importance of letting the investigative process unfold.

The court rejects the argument that the existence of a civil remedy negates the possibility of criminal prosecution, reiterating that both civil and criminal actions can be pursued in different situations.

REFERRED CASES:

State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp

L.V. Jadhav Vs. Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar and Others, AIR 1983 SC 1219 : (1983) 2 Crimes 470 : (1983) 2 SCALE 175 : (1983) 4 SCC 231 : (1983) 3 SCR 762

Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others, AIR 1999 SC 3499 : (1999) CriLJ 4325 : (1999) 6 JT 618 : (1999) 5 SCALE 609 : (1999) 8 SCC 686 : (1999) 2 SCR 686 Supp : (2000) 1 UJ 392 : (1999) AIRSCW 3492 : (1999) 8 Supreme 53

Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and Another, AIR 1985 SC 628 : (1985) CriLJ 817 : (1985) 1 Crimes 614 : (1985) 155 ITR 190 : (1985) 1 SCALE 458 : (1985) 2 SCC 370 : (1985) 3 SCR 191

Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1216 : (1999) CriLJ 1833 : (1999) 1 Crimes 136 : (1999) 2 CTC 243 : (1999) 2 JT 112 : (1999) 1 SCALE 697 : (1999) 3 SCC 259 : (1999) 1 SCR 1012 : (1999) 1 UJ 685 : (1999) AIRSCW 881 : (1999) 2 Supreme 442

Ram Jas Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 1811 : (1974) CriLJ 1261 : (1970) 2 SCC 740 : (1970) 1 SCC(Cri) 516 : (1971) 2 SCR 178

Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, AIR 1976 SC 1947 : (1976) CriLJ 1533 : (1976) 3 SCC 736 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 507 : (1976) SCR 123 Supp