Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Allen Berry And Co. Private Ltd. And Anr. vs Vivian Bose And Ors. on 8 October, 1959

In Re: Anil Starch Products Ltd. vs Unknown on 11 February, 1974

Mr. Desai has also invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 and Alien Berry & Co. P. Ltd. v. Vivian Bose, AIR 1960 Punj 86 . We are afraid these cases have also no application to the facts of the case and we do not consider it necessary to deal with them in detail.
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

People Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar on 5 September, 1961

(20) Mr. B. R. Tuli, learned counsel for the respondent, has relied upon M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 : 1954 SCR 1077, Allen Berry and Co. Private Ltd. v. Vivian Bose, AIR 1960 Punj 86, Shankerlal v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, AIR 1960 Mad 225, Farid Ahmed v. The State, AIR 1960 Cal 32 and Madhava naik v. Popular Bank Ltd. AIR 1961 Kerala 14.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

G.S. Harnal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 28 May, 1971

(23) Secondly, even if the Government were relying solely on the report and the proceedings of this Commission to think that a prima facie case for the disciplinary inquiry exists against the petitioners, the decision to direct the Indian Oil Corporation to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners is an independent one. It exists apart from the report of the Commission. The report cannot even G be used as evidence against the petitioners in the disciplinary inquiry Allen Berry & Co. P. Ltd. v. Vivian Bose & Others, Can this Court quash the decision of the Government ? Obviously not. Just as this Court cannot compel the Government to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioners similarly this Court cannot compel the Government not to hold such disciplinary inquiry against the petitioners. If this is the legal position, it would be perfectly futile for this Court to quash the report of the Commission. Such quashing only kills the action directly based on the report. It cannot affect action which is not compelled by I he report but which is based on iin independent decision of the Government. This is the crux of the distinction between a fact- finding inquiry and a disciplinary inquiry. The former does not compel any action and does not impose any punishment. The latter necessarily results in action or punishment. Therefore, the former cannot be quashed while the latter can be quashed.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sales Tax Officer vs Indian Wood Products Co. Ltd. on 18 August, 1971

(23) Secondly, even if the Government were relying solely on the report and the proceedings of this Commission to think that a prima facie case for the disciplinary inquiry exists against the petitioners, the decision to direct the Indian Oil Corporation to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners is an independent one. It exists apart from the report of the Commission. The report cannot even G be used as evidence against the petitioners in the disciplinary inquiry [Allen Berry & Co. P. Ltd. v. Vivian Bose & Others, Can this Court quash the decision of the Government ? Obviously not. Just as this Court cannot compel the Government to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioners similarly this Court cannot compel the Government not to hold such disciplinary inquiry against the petitioners. If this is the legal position, it would be perfectly futile for this Court to quash the report of the Commission. Such quashing only kills the action directly based on the report. It cannot affect action which is not compelled by I he report but which is based on iin independent decision of the Government. This is the crux of the distinction between a fact- finding inquiry and a disciplinary inquiry. The former does not compel any action and does not impose any punishment. The latter necessarily results in action or punishment. Therefore, the former cannot be quashed while the latter can be quashed.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Hon. Mr. Justice B.P. Beri And Ors. on 5 May, 1967

8. Mr. B. L. Bhargava learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. S. M. Hassan, AIR 1954 Nag 71, and Alien Berry and Co. v. Vivian Bose, AIR 1960 Punj 86. In the last mentioned case the Commission had ordered that inspection of certain documents could be allowed at a later stage and the party who was refused inspection approached the High Court, and the learned Judges observed that:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Sohanlal Pahladrai Vaid vs State on 3 February, 1964

8. Mr. Nain during his arguments relied upon Alien Berry and Co., Private Ltd. v. Vivian Bose , Gulab v. The Crown, AIR 1923 Lah 315, Imperatrix v. Pitamber Jina, ILR 2 Bom 61, Queen Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand, ILR 9 Bom 131 and (1837) 7 LJ 268. The point that arises before me did not directly arise in those cases, and in my opinion these cases will not strictly speaking apply to the facts of the present case. I may, however, mention that the decision, ILR 9 Bom 131, may have some relevance. In that case Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, was considered and it was held that although the confession made to a police officer may be inadmissible to prove the alleged offence against the maker of that confession, it is admissible for other purposes under Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly even though a statement made before a Commission cannot be used--subject to the exception mentioned in Section 6--against the person making that statement so as to fasten on him civil or criminal liability, it can be used for other purposes, e.g., to show that that person, when he gives evidence in a subsequent proceeding, is not telling the truth or that he did not tell the truth when he gave evidence before the Commission.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sohanlal Pahladrai Vaid vs State on 3 February, 1964

(8) Mr. Nain during his argument relied upon Allen Berry and Co., Private Ltd. v. Vivian Bose , Gulab v. The Crown, AIR 1923 Lah 315, Imperatrix v. Pitamber Jina, ILR 2 Bom 61, Queen Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand, ILR 9 Bom 131 and (1837) 7 LJ 268. The point that arises before me did not directly arise in those cases, and in my opinion these case will not strictly speaking apply to the facts of the present case. I may, however, mention that the decision, ILR 9 Bom 131, may have some relevance. In that case S.25 of the Indian Evidence Act, was considered and it was held that although the confession made to a police officer may be inadmissible to prove the alleged offence against the maker of that confession, it is admissible for other purposes under S.18 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly even though a statement made before a Commission cannot be used - subject to the exception mentioned in Section 6 - against the person making that statement so as to fasten on him civil or criminal liability, it can be used for other purposes, e.g., to show that that person, when he gives evidence in a subsequent proceeding, is not telling the truth or that he did not tell the truth when he gave evidence before the Commission.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1