|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 259 Records
-
1992 (8) TMI 290 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded that the dewatering with more than one pump was authorised by the officials on the spot and, if the arbitrators had accepted this plea, the Court cannot interfere therewith. Likewise in Clause 1.28 and condition 32, the import of the words "tender amount shall exclude" is very ambiguous and indeed we find that the arguments at various stages indicate that the parties were themselves not clear as to whether they wanted "toll tax" to be within this clause or outside its purview. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the matter further. We only wish to say that, even reading the clauses and the award side by side, it is difficult to say that the arbitrator's interpretation is erroneous on the face of it. 15. For the reasons discussed above we allow the appeals, set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court and direct the passing of a decree in terms of the award. We, however, make no order regarding costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 289 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y to go into the legal points raised by Mr. Jain as we are inclined to quash the prosecution against the appellant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. After the raid no action was taken by the prosecution for six years. The Public Prosecutor consistently opined that no criminal case was made out against the appellant. The Commissioner on independent consideration refused to grant the sanction but later on at the asking of the DIG (Vigilance) he changed his view. The prosecution against the appellant is pending for over a period of thirteen years and it would be travesty of justice to permit the prosecution at this stage which would mean that the appellant would suffer the trial/appeal for another decade. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case we quash the prosecution pending against the appellant and also the proceedings before the Special Judge (Vigilance South Bihar), Patna who took cognizance of the case on November 21, 1990. Appeal allowed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 288 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... dent chairman in the discharge of his function. He will call a meeting of the new board of directors as early as possible but not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and take possession of all the books of the company. He will also take steps to call an extraordinary general meeting of all shareholders for the purpose of electing new board of directors. 19. While the case was heard by three members including Shri A.M. Chakraborti, he was not present in the final stages of hearing and he ceased to be a member of the Company Law Board with effect from May 15, 1992. Regulation 4 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, provides that the Principal Bench will have not less than two members including the chairman and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, this final order is being passed by the two-member Bench. 20. Let a copy of this order be also served on all the directors and independent chairman. 21. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 287 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the detenu has retracted even at the earliest point of time when he was produced before the Court on the first occasion. The High Court before which the same contention has been raised has been carefully examined and rejected for the reasons given in paragraph 4 of its judgment. On carefully examining this contention, we see no force in this submission also. 11. Incidentally, it was submitted that there was a considerable delay in passing the detention order from the date of the seizure of the contraband. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the explanation giving by the respondent we do not find any merit in this contention also. After going through the records, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the said detention order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting our interference in the impugned judgment of the High Court. 12. In the result, both the appeal as well as the Writ Petition are dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 286 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... s leave to withdraw the petition. The Special Leave Petition will stand disposed of as withdrawn.
-
1992 (8) TMI 285 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lf of the petitioner is that before any further steps will be taken, an order may be directed to be passed on Exts. P10 and P12. I do not find any warrant for this submission. The petitioner will not only get an opportunity and get his case considered, but he will also get an opportunity to raise all contentions in support of Exts. P10 and P12 before final orders are passed. Petitioner will be given an opportunity to be heard before consequential assessment is made pursuant to Ext. P9. With the above, original petition is disposed of.
-
1992 (8) TMI 284 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... est not to lay the report on the floor of each House of Parliament does not arise. Necessarily, the committee is to be requested to withhold submission of its report for a reasonable time. 142. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and direct the Registrar General to communicate a letter of request to Sri Justice P. B. Sawant Committee to supply a copy of the report to Hon'ble Sri Justice V. Ramaswami and to convey further request to withhold submission of its report for a reasonable time from the date of the receipt of the letter of request from the Registry. The Attorney General is also requested to apprise the Hon'ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha of the order passed in this behalf and if necessary to extend the needed time to enable the committee to submit its report within that extended time. The writ petition is accordingly ordered but in the circumstances without cost. ORDER The Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of, and in accordance with the majority opinion.
-
1992 (8) TMI 283 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iew taken by them there as "unorthodox" and which may "almost amount to re-reading of the latter part of Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) of the Act differently". Instead, I prefer the view taken by the earlier benches, and particularly by the Full Bench of the High Court in State of Kerala v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., (1980) KLT 976 (FB) which supports the interpretation that I have placed- on the said provisions. For the reasons indicated above,I am of the view that the land used for growing fuel-whether for supplying it to the workers or for its use in the smoke-house-would not fall within the purview of Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) of the Act as the said use cannot be said to be a purpose either "ancillary to the cultivation of the plantation crops" in question, or "for the preparation of the said crops for the market". In the result, I dismiss all the appeals. The appellants will pay cost to the respondent-State in separate sets. Appeals allowed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 282 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... whereas the title of the property would be deemed to have vested in the Government on the date when the award was made, i.e., 19th Feb., 1962 which is a transfer' within the meaning of s. 45 of the IT Act, 1961, and hence the date of pronouncement of the award i.e., 16th March, 1962 being subsequent event would be of no consequence as per decision contained in CIT vs. Purshottambhai Maganbhai Hatheesing (HUF) (1984) 38 CTR (Guj) 276 (1985) 156 ITR 150(Guj) and, therefore, the capital gain is correctly assessable in the hands of the assessee (HUF) ?" 2. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra vs. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1961 SC 1500 and State of Punjab vs. Qaisar Jehan Begum AIR 1963 SC 1604 and also the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Ramadhar (1985) 44 CTR (Del) 31 (1985) 156 ITR 755(Del) the answer to the question proposed has become academic. 3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 281 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lised unless he actually sold the Raddi. The purpose of Form 31 is only to enable the Sales Tax Authority to keep a check over entry of good from outside U. P. Form 31 does not enable the State to levy sales tax even if there is no sale at all. In the circumstances the Tribunal should have considered whether the assessee sold the Raddi in question in U. P. or used it in his factory as raw material. 5. In these circumstances the order of the Tribunal dated 26-10-1988 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above within three months of production of certified copy of this order. 6. Revision is allowed. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 280 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inguishable. The respondent there was a member of the Society in question and had taken a loan which was the subject matter of the dispute. As was pointed out by the High Court the claim had stood barred by limitation and, therefore, it was held that the reference was incompetent in view of the Proviso to section 48(1). The High Court in the present case was, in the circumstances, not entitled to rely on this decision and its conclusions must be set aside as being erroneous in law. 9. However, since in the judgement it is stated that several other questions were also raised on behalf of the respondent No.1 (who was the writ petitioner) which remained undecided, the case requires reconsideration by the High Court on the remaining points. Accordingly the impugned judgement is set aside and the writ petition is remitted to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with the observations in the present judgement. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 279 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... judging the impact of an enactment on the fundamental rights of the citizens, the court has to take into account the social setting of the country, the increasing needs of the nation, the burning problems of the day and the complex issue facing the people which the legislature in its wisdom seeks to solve through beneficial legislation; and the judicial approach in this should be dynamic rather than static, pragmatic rather than pedantic and elastic rather than rigid. The temper of the times and the living aspirations and the feelings of the people must be taken into consideration while striking a just balance between the fundamental rights and the larger and broader interests of society. We, therefore, hold that judged from this angle both the Acts have to be upheld by virtue of clauses (5) and (6) of Article 19. Accordingly all the writ petitions, civil appeals and the special leave petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Petitions/Appeals dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 278 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case any further. The first case is an illustration as to how a representation would require to be construed in favour and for the benefit of the detenu. The second case deals with a non-statutory representation, presented to the Prime Minister in a foreign country. 6. In the facts of the case it requires to be held that the first representation made by the detenu for revocation was the one made to the Governor on 6.10.1991. That, as observed earlier, was not disposed of expeditiously. There was unexplained and unreasonable delay. That itself in our opinion, vitiates the detention. It is not, therefore, necessary to consider the other contentions urged. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed; the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 4072/92 under appeal is set aside; the said writ petition is allowed; the order of detention dated 30.8.1991 is quashed and the detenu, Mohamad Ishaq, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.
-
1992 (8) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the petitioner has locus to maintain the writ petition?
Held that:- for the fact that petitioner Raj Kanwar after the conclusion of the hearing in which he was permitted to file written submissions which we have taken into account, chose to adopt the extraordinary course of an application to the Chief Justice of India to make the wholly unjustified grievance that he was not orally heard. As an advocate he should have known that such an application is untenable apart from being misconceived. He should have appreciated that public interest was served better by early conclusion of the hearing rather than its prolongation to enable every individual, who so desired, to address us orally. We are also of the opinion that in a matter of this kind, it was not only unnecessary but also inappropriate to permit the hearing being converted into a debate for participation of every individual in the name of public interest. We do not think that the persistence of Raj Kanwar is in public interest.
The basis of the right claimed by the petitioner, Raj Kanwar, has to be found in some principle to amount to the right of the kind he claims. There is no special injury to him alleged and, therefore, the right he claims is no better than that available to every other advocate in the country. If the mere membership of the Bar can provide the foundation for the right which Raj Kanwar asserts to maintain a separate petition then on principle every advocate in the country would be entitled to file a separate petition, and as he claims also entitled to be heard orally even though it may only be at best repetition of the same arguments which Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate advanced at length. Since it cannot be visualized that every Advocate as an individual can claim such a right in public interest, it cannot be doubted that the claim made by petitioner, Raj Kanwar to this effect and his insistence on being orally heard when he had nothing additional to contribute, as is evident from his petition and the written arguments, is clearly misconceived. It is necessary that this tendency is curbed in public interest to avoid wastage of courts' time and abuse of its process. Appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... elivered subsequently for condonation of the delay in filing an appeal. In our view, this judgment is not relevant at all with regard to the issue before us. That apart, even under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Deputy Commissioner has got the power to touch an order of assessment within a period of five years, after the passing of the order. In this case, the assessment order has been passed on July 15, 1977 and the petitioner has filed the petition under section 32 of the Act on June 15, 1981. On the ground that the limitation has not expired, for the revenue has got the right to touch the order, we do not think that the assessee can be denied of that benefit. On this ground also, in our view, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. The tax revision case is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 275 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... C. No. 1424 of 1980 dated March 17, 1981). That was a case where this Court confirmed the factual findings arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal being a final authority on facts, and in our view, the said judgment cannot in any manner come to the assistance of the appellants in this case. We are, therefore, of the view that the conclusions arrived at by the Joint Commissioner in the present case are just and reasonable and that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Joint Commissioner. For all the reasons stated above, we see no reason to sustain the challenge to the order of the Joint Commissioner made on January 25, 1982, which is the subjectmatter of challenge in T.C. No. 77 of 1984. 17.. For all the reasons stated above, T.C. No. 25 of 1984 shall stand allowed and T.C. No. 77 of 1984 shall stand dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. T.C. No. 25 of 1984 allowed. T.C. No. 77 of 1984 dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 274 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gs and conclusion on the issue raised based on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1980 45 STC 212 Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and the matter is remitted to the assessing authority with a direction to restore the matter for consideration of the question of taxability or otherwise of the turnover relating to canteen sales to the tune of Rs. 7,16,032.25 in the light of the decision in 1980 45 STC 212 (SC) Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi . The assessing authority shall give sufficient opportunity to the appellant and determine the issue relating to the taxability or otherwise of the said turnover relating to the canteen sales in the light of the decision reported in 1980 45 STC 212 (SC) Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and in accordance with law. The appeal shall stand ordered to the extent indicated above with the direction to the assessing authority as stated supra. No costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 273 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. 15.. In the result, the application is to fail. Before concluding it is to be stated that the respondent No. 2 dismissed on contest Revision Case No. 274 of 1979-80 preferred by the respondent No. l against the order in suo motu revision passed by the applicant No. 2 on July 21, 1979. This is evidently a mistake, when the respondent No. 2 held in the impugned order dated October 28, 1980, that the proceeding for suo motu revision was barred by limitation. 16.. The application is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to cost. The Revision Case No. 274 of 1979-80 before the respondent No. 2 should be taken to have been allowed and not dismissed by the respondent No. 2. On the verbal prayer of Mr. T.N. De, the learned State Representative, there will be stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of eight weeks from this date. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 272 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , therefore, liable to be quashed. 6.. The matter may still be looked into from one more angle. Even assuming that the appellate authority had the power to set aside the order of penalty and to remit the same to the assessing officer for making a fresh order in accordance with the directions given by it, then also the impugned order of penalty cannot be sustained as admittedly no such direction had, in fact, been given in the instant case by the appellate authority while setting aside the order of penalty. In the absence of any such direction in the order, the Sales Tax Officer had no power to take up the matter again and to pass a fresh order. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained on that count also. 7.. In the result, the impugned order of penalty dated July 30, 1982, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Wardha, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with costs, which in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, is quantified at Rs. 2,000. Writ petition allowed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 271 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... orally submitted that as the petitioner had already collected and paid the tax for the period from July 15, 1987 to August 15, 1987, the eligibility certificate may be made effective with effect from August 15, 1987. The facts are not controverted into the case and the law is settled. This Court, in the case of Om Shiv Shakti Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 1989 72 STC 437, has held that the certificate of eligibility for grant of exemption under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987, will be operative with effect from the date of application made by the unit for grant of the certificate and not from the date of issuance of the certificate. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in accepting this writ petition and no further discussion of facts or law is required to be made in this case as we are in full agreement with the law laid down in the aforesaid case. The writ petition therefore, is allowed in terms of prayer. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
