|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 508 Records
-
1998 (7) TMI 724 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Kumar (K.) v. Bapsons Foot Wear rendered by this court, in which it is held that mere issuance of cheques in the course of the business and its dishonour would not satisfy the requirements needed for making out an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is not helpful to the petitioner, since, in the instant cases, there is a specific allegation that the cheques were issued towards balance of sale consideration of the property, the possession of which was handed over on the date of sale agreement itself. 21. In view of the above discussion, the contention of counsel for the petitioner would not be a valid one and consequently, these revisions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M. P. Nos. 3196 and 3197 of 1996 stand dismissed. 22. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The registry is directed to despatch the records to the trial court forthwith.
-
1998 (7) TMI 723 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... majority of the Special Bench consisting of Chief Justice, V. K. Gupta J ; N.A. Chowdhury J. and Panlgrahl J. the application of Sallesh Jaiswal (C.R.M. 152/98) has to be ordered in accordance with the Judgment of Panlgrahl J. All other applications seeking ball in anticipation of arrest in respect of cases which have been registered or arisen at places outside the territorial Jurisdiction of this court have to be considered in the light of the Judgment of Panlgrahl J. The judgment by Bhattacharjee J. being the minority view shall not operate until the majority view exists. All applications accordingly shall be placed before the appropriate Bench for orders as Indicated above. P.S. Mishra, C.J. 46. I agree. V.K. Gupta, J. 47. I agree. N.A. Chowdhury, J. 48. I agree. B. Panigrahi, J. 49. I agree. G.R. Bhattacharjee, J. 50. The above observations, with due respect are not warranted as my Judgment may be operative on points not covered by or dealt with in the majority Judgment.
-
1998 (7) TMI 722 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arks. Therefore, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action arose at Madras. Thus, the finding of the Learned Judge, that unless the goods are actually marketed, it cannot be said that there has been an infringement of the trade mark within the jurisdiction of this Court, is unsustainable. We answer both the questions in the affirmative. 10. In view of the memo filed by the respondent stating that the steps have been taken to change the name of their business, in which event, no cause of action survives in favour of the appellant. Since the learned Judge observed that it is desirable to have the issue settled which is brought up before this Court at frequent intervals by a decision of the division Bench Of this Court, we have decided the questions involved in this appeal. Since we have held that the view of the teamed Judge is unsustainable, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Parities to bear their own costs. Consequently, the CMP is closed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 721 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted judgment dated 19.8.97 in CrI.O.P. No.4601 of 1997 of this Court, to show that the firm should necessarily be made as an accused along with partners. 12. Contrary to this proposition, this Court in N. Doraisamy and Another v. M/s. Archana Enterprises, Janarthanam, J. (as he then was) after considering the decision in, S. Krishna Moorthy v. B.S. Kesavan, 1994 M.L.J. 147 held that the complaint against the partner alone without adding the company as an accused cannot be held to be invalid. 13. However, in the instant cases, I need not go into the question about the correctness of the above decisions, giving divergent views. Since on the facts of these cases in the instant Revisions, I do not find any merit to interfere in the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. 14. In the result, these revisions, which have no merit, are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No orders is necessary. Hence, the Revisions are disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (7) TMI 720 - THE COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... it on the same cause of action, the court has expressly declined to grant the liberty. Therefore, consistent with legal propriety and as held in the cases cited by Shri Ganguli, when the court has refused liberty to reagitate the same matter, we are of the view that we should not permit the petitioner to reagitate the same in the proceedings before us and as such we are not looking into any of the allegations as contained in the petition. That being the case, the petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable. Once the petition is not maintainable, as we have already observed, the question of looking into other allegations in subsequent applications, does not arise. Moreover, we also find that the subsequent allegations are more or less covered in the Title Suit No. 70 of 1994. 17. Accordingly, without elaborating the arguments of the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents on the merits of the case, we dismiss this petition as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 719 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... made by the learned representatives of the parties, we find that the assessed had specifically mentioned in para six of statement of fact that the assessing officer had added a lump sum amount of ₹ 50,000 in the income out of expenses without looking into the detailed facts and circumstances of the case. The total disallowances were challenged in ground No. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any decision in relation to this point. This matter is also, Therefore, restored back to the Commissioner (Appeals) who will decide the aforesaid point in accordance with the provisions of law and after allowing opportunity to both sides. 12. In ground No. 9, the assessed has challenged the levy of interest under section 217. This matter is also restored back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the same in accordance with the provisions of law and after hearing both the sides. In the result, the assessees appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1998 (7) TMI 718 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... Revenue, hence the charges made by Revenue is totally unsubstantiated. Further we note that the Collector has examined thoroughly the evidence pertaining to the lorry challans from para 72 to para 99. We have perused this finding including the allegation of non-carrying of household goods by ex-employees and that it was clandestine removal of goods. We notice that the Collector after thorough examination of the records has come to the conclusion that no evidence was available to prove that extra quantity was transported from Bangalore to Delhi. We find that the order of the Collector is most judicious, well written after full analysis of the evidence and it does not call for interference on any account. We place on record that the Collector has written a very detailed order after analysing all the evidences and his order is sustainable in law. 29. In the result, there is no merits in the appeal and hence the same is rejected. The Cross appeal is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (7) TMI 717 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge-sheet, its actual service is essential as the person to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. So also, when the show-cause notice is issued, the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action proposed to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employee is given an opportunity to submit his reply, the theory of "Communication" cannot be invoked and "Actual Service" must be proved and established. It has already been found that neither the charge-sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon the original respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar. Consequently, the entire proceedings were vitiated. 11. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 716 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Race Shipping & Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Another, , relied on behalf of the plaintiff but the same are of on help to the plaintiff as the same are not at all relevant for the purposes of deciding the point, which has arisen for consideration, which has been stated by us in the earlier part of the order. 14. For the foregoing discussion, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. I.A.9918/95 is dismissed while I.A.12447/95 and I.A.12451/95 are allowed. Pending suit the plaintiff/respondent, its directors, servants, agents and dealers are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparation under the trade mark SEFLOX or any other mark as may be deceptively similar to the said mark which may lead to confusion or deception amounting to the passing off of the plaintiff's medicinal preparation as that of the defendant/appellant. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 715 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er will be satisfied if a writ is issued by this Court directing the respondent to grant registration w.e.f. 1991 when the law was already amended and the proviso was substituted. 12. In view of the said statement, we are not expressing final opinion on interpretation of proviso to clause (i) of s. 12-A(a) and direct the respondent to grant application of the petitioner under clause (ii) of s. 12-A(a). 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. As the application for registration made by the petitioner association was not rejected on the valid grounds and as the point is concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the respondent is directed to grant application of the petitioner. The respondent will grant registration to the petitioner-association under s. 12-A of the IT Act, 1961 with effect from the 1st day of the financial year 1991-92. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 714 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ticipation in selection by a near relation of any candidate. In the present case, the degree of relationship between the appellant and the member of the Selection Committee is remote by six degrees. Therefore, the appellant cannot be considered a near relation of the member of the Selection Committee. Since this is the sole ground for setting aside the selection by the High Court, we set aside the order of the High Court. 3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, since this is a legal aid matter, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 713 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act. It would be seen that a motor cycle has been defined to mean a two wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any detachable side car having an extra wheel, attached to the motor vehicle. Whether the vehicles in which the petitioners deal come within the definition of a motorcycle under the Central Act, is a matter for the Taxing Officer to consider, having regard to the facts of the case. 43. In the result. I hold that the impugned Taxation Act is a valid piece of legislation. The petitioners cannot deny their liability to pay annual lax at the rates specified. However CWJC No. .1788 of 1995 (R) is partly allowed inasmuch as the Taxing Officer is directed to hear the petitioners on the question of assessment of tax and imposition of penalty and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law having regard to the directions contained in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the judgment. The remaining writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no Order as to costs. B.P. Sharma, J. 44. I agree.
-
1998 (7) TMI 712 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he previous year in which the transfer took place." 5. Section 2(47) of the Act provides that relinquishment or extinguishment of any rights in the capital asset amounts to transfer of a capital asset. In the instant case, the assessee has received cash in lieu of 150 shares and on receipt of that cash, there is extinguishment of the rights of the assessee in those shares. Sale is one of the modes of transfer envisaged by section 2(47) of the Act. Extinguishment of the assessee's right is a transfer and any profit or gain which arises from such transfer is liable to be taxed, under section 45 of the Act. The assessee who has received money representing his share from the amalgamated company has received that money in satisfaction of the right which belonged to him by virtue of holding his share and it amounts to capital gain. The assessee is liable to pay the tax on capital gain. 6. We answer the question of law in the affirmative in favour of the revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 711 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing each of them a hearing before the assessing authority. 87. For the foregoing reasons the CWPs 172/97, 460/97, 529/97, 530/97, 597/97, 790/97, 845/97, 1101/97, 1217/97, 1144/97, 1215/97, 1218/97, 1219/97, 1272/97 are dismissed. CWP 1254/97 and 2106/97 are partly allowed. The impugned orders of assessment marked as P-10 and P-9 respectively in the two petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are directed to appear before the STO, Ward 89, Lottery Cell. Bikrikar Bhawan, New Delhi or any other authority in whom the power of assessment vests as on the day, on 14-9-1998. The assessing authority shall afford each of the two petitioners an opportunity of hearing limited to the question of determining the quantum of taxable turnover and whether any penalty is liable to be imposed. Thereafter orders of assessment may be passed afresh. Looking to the purely legal issues arising for decision in all the petitions, the parties are left to bear the costs as incurred.
-
1998 (7) TMI 710 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imum quantity. This implies that the incentive bonus is not paid when production does not exceed that minimum quantity. If so, clearly, the incentive bonus is not a remuneration received by the respondent Company's employees “on regular basis”. 4 . Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted, however, that there was a scheme and that suggested regularity of payment. Judged only upon the basis of the scheme, it must be held, 'that it contemplates situations where the incentive bonus is payable and situations where it is not payable. Judged on the scheme, therefore the payments of incentive bonus are not on regular basis. It would have been another matter had the appellants been able to place material before the Tribunal to show that, despite the terms of the scheme, there had in fact been, over a substantial period of time, payment of incentive 'bonus from month to month. 5. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 709 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the High Court and it has found that they were complied with. Learned counsel was not able to point out how Rule 4(3) or Rule 4(4) have not been complied with in this case. His submission that it is not mentioned in the certificate that the sample was intact and therefore there was non-compliance does not deserve any consideration because there is no requirement that in the Certificate of Analysis itself it should be stated that the sample when received by the Central Food Laboratory was found intact. 3. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the offence had taken place in 1979 and the appellant's father, who was the owner of the shop has now died and, therefore, some leniency should be shown to him. We cannot accept this submission because once the offence is held proved, the minimum sentence has to be imposed. 4. As we find no substance in this appeal, it is dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.
-
1998 (7) TMI 708 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... documentary evidence, Obviously, there has been no insurance coverage in respect of the gunny bags. Therefore, the Respondent-Cross-Objector cannot validly make any claim in respect of these two items. The judgment of the Court below insofar as this claim is concerned, is well founded and there are no compelling reasons for me to differ with the same. The Cross-Objections filed by the Cross-Objector Respondent must also fail. The rate of interest as granted by the trial Court is 18 which was not the prevailing rate of interest even in regard to the commercial transactions. The usual rate being allowed by the Courts of law is 12 and therefore, interest is to be reduced from 18 to 12 and with that modification the appeal shall be disposed of. 18. In the result, the Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed as indicated above in the judgment. The Cross-Objections also fail and they are dismissed. Under the circumstances, I direct both parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 707 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ary is proved. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in entertaining and accepting the plea of the accused-respondent at the initial stage of the proceedings and quashing the complaints filed by the appellant. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and direct the trial court to proceed with the complaints in accordance with law.
-
1998 (7) TMI 706 - CEGAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... uct, and it is not the case of a different type of yarn, like spun yarn, being imported, as indicated in the example given in the Dept. clarification referred to above. Admittedly, imported filament yarn finds commercial use in production of fabrics. Hence the objection taken that input polyester filament yarn imported is not of the same denierage as that of the yarn actually used in the exported shirting fabric, appears to us, in the circumstances of the Dept. understanding of the scope of the exempted material noted above, to be the result of going into minute detail as regards specification of the material so as to establish a 'close nexus' between input and export product. It has been seen that it is not the intention behind the exemption to establish such a close nexus. In the result, it is held that the imported polyester filament yarn is 50D is eligible for clearance against the Advance licences produced. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rable prejudice would be caused to the opposite party when irrelevant matters are allowed to be considered by Courts by adding a new party whose interest has no nexus to the subject-matter of the suit." 11.2 Applying all the five tests, it does not appear that in the present matter, IDBI has any substantive legal interest in questions arising and involved in the suit, which cannot be decoded without IDBI making a party. Of course, their presence may be necessary through workers to prove the alleged admission, presence of their Director on the Board of Directors of defendant No.1 through awareness. 12. There cannot be any dispute in aforesaid such circumstances that IDBI is neither necessary nor proper party nor its presence as a party is likely to enable this court in effectually deciding the matter and the question once for all without impleading them as a party. 13. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, I do not find any force in this application and dismiss the same.
........
|
