|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 500 Records
-
2001 (11) TMI 1060 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... le their objection thereto, if any, within one month from the date when received. The Auditors shall after considering the objections, if any give final report. The Auditors' fees for valuation will be negotiated and paid by the company. On the basis of the valuation, the consideration worked out for the shares held by the petitioners' group shall be paid either by the respondents or by the company, who shall be bound to purchase the shares. In case the respondents desire to purchase the shares, the petitioners will execute blank transfer forms and hand over the same to the respondents on receipt of consideration. In case the company desires to purchase the shares, the same shall be cancelled on payment of consideration; and the share capital of the company shall be reduced to that extent. The whole exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the valuation report. 22. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1059 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is not acceptable as the son-in-law has already started practice in one room of the suit premises. 11. We are, therefore of the opinion that the High Court not only overlooked the findings of the Trial Court which were based on evidence but treated the revision petition as an appeal and did not test the order of the Trial Court on the touchstone of whether it is according to law. The finding of the High Court is erroneous and accordingly we hold that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. 12. We, therefore, find merit in the present appeal and accordingly allow it by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restoring the judgment of the Trial Court. Cost on the parties. However, as the respondent-tenant is residing in the suit premises since June, 1992, to meet the ends of justice and make alternative arrangement, we grant him time to vacate the suit premises by 31st December, 2002 subject to filing of usual undertaking within four weeks from today.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1058 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iciently indicates the name of the restaurant. This un-illuminated sign is next to the illuminated sign board in question. Having regard to the size of the illuminated sign board, we are clearly of the view that it is intended to call the attention of the customers to the restaurant where service is provided. In our view, therefore, the illuminated signboard is clearly an advertisement. 14. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 14th February, 2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 2223 of 2000. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants states that the Corporation will not take any steps for coercive recovery of fees or removal of the neon sign board for a period of six weeks. All Authorities concerned to act on the ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by Associate of this Court. P. A. to give ordinary copy of this order to the parties concerned. 16. Appeal allowed.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1057 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Union of India, State Governments as well as the Union Territories to take effective steps to ensure prohibiting smoking in public places, namely 1. Auditoriums 2. Hospital Buildings 3. Health Institutions 4. Educational Institutions 5. Libraries 6. Court Buildings 7. Public Office 8. Public Conveyances, including Railways. Learned Attorney General for India assured the court that Union of India shall take necessary effective steps to give wide publicity to this order by electronic as well as print media to make the general public aware of this order of prohibition of smoking. We further direct the Registrar General to intimate the State Governments Union Territories as well as the Commissioners of Police as mentioned in our orders dated 31st August, 2001 and 28th September, 2001 of this Court with directions for submission of their compliance report in this Court within five weeks from today. Union of India shall also file its response at the earliest. List after six weeks.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hold that the master plan prepared as per law in force even subsequent to enforcement of the Act is to be taken into consideration to determine whether a particular piece of land is vacant land or not and, to this extent, Atia Begum is not correctly decided. 13. In these matters, however, we are not concerned with the question as to the consequences of filing of a statement by a person under a wrong impression that the vacant land held by him is excess of ceiling limit if it was not so when he filed a statement. This aspect is left open to decided in an appropriate case. 14. Before concluding we wish to place on record our deep appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, who on our request very readily agreed to assist the Court as amicus curiae. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, C.A. Nos. 3813/1996, 7238/2001 and 7239/2001 are allowed and C.A. Nos. 1149/1985 and 10851/1996 are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1055 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itness in Lie Detection Test. The Trial Court shall also give an opportunity to the prosecution to. place on record data and material in respect of Lie Detection Test. If the prosecution projects the witness as an expert, then it will be the duty of the prosecution to lay necessary foundation for the same. If any objection in respect of the recording of the evidence or in respect of any document which may be produced by this witness or prosecution, is raised by any of the parties, the Trial Court shall decide the same as directed by the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal's case. In this view of the matter with the abovesaid directions to the trial Court, this. Revision Application is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Rule is made absolute to that extent. At this juncture, learned Advocate Mr. A. D. Shah submits that the interim relief be extended for further period. Upon his request interim relief granted in the matter is extended for three weeks from today.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1054 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld that Section 204(2) of the Cr. P.C. demands absolute compliance, I have to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused Sri Basavaraj Sabarad that there is non-compliance with Section 204(2) of the Cr. P.C. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate with regard to issuing of summons is set aside. Taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate, recording of sworn statement and even the conclusion of the learned Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner-accused for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is left intact. The matter stands remitted to the learned Magistrate. It is for the complainant to file list of witnesses or if he has no other witnesses, then, he has to file a memo to the effect that he is the only witness and no other witnesses are to be examined. On such a list or memo being filed, the learned Magistrate may direct issuing of summons. 5. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1053 - CEGAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ent rendered by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Modi Rubber Ltd. was followed by this bench in the case of Madura Coats Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy arising out of the same Commissioner (Appeals)' Orders-in-Appeal No. 82-85/2000 - MDU (GVN) dated 16.10.2000 and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order by allowing the appeals. 6. Following the ratio of this decision as well as the decision of the Delhi bench in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE Meerut (supra) and also the judgment rendered by this bench in the case of Madura Coats Ltd. v. CCE Trichy vide Final order No. 1801-1804/2000 dated 13.12.2000, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal and direct consequential relief in accordance with law. The department shall allow them to utilise the accumulated Modvat credit on Additional Excise Duty which was paid on unprocessed fabrics plus towards payment of BED/AED on any of the final product so produced by them in their factory.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1051 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is of very wide amplitude and if there is any negligence, latches or mistakes by not examining material witnesses, the Courts function to render just decision by examining such witnesses at any stage is not, in any way, impaired. This Court in Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell (1999) 6 SCC 110 observed, After all, function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better. In this view of the matter, appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed by the High Court confirming the order dated 2.6.2000 of Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya is set aside. Application filed by the State under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The Sessions Judge is directed to proceed with the matter on day to day basis by strictly adhering to Section 309 Cr.P.C. and directing the officer-in-charge of police station Bodh Gaya to keep witnesses present in the court for their examination.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1050 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of Motion No. 2455/2000 taken out by defendant No. 1 vessel Sea Success-I and her owner is granted in terms of prayer Clause (a) and, accordingly, the plaint is rejected against them for non-disclosure of cause of action. (d) All interim orders passed against the defendant No. 1 vessel m.v. "SeaSuccess I" in Admiralty Suit No. 32/2000 stand discharged and Bank of Guarantee dated 8-8-2000 furnished by the owners of defendant No. 1 vessel is cancelled and Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to return the same to the owners of the defendant No. 1 vessel. (e) Appeal No. 739/2000 arising out of Notice of Motion No. 1376/1998 inAdmiralty Suit No. 30/1998 is dismissed and order dated 29-8-200 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 1376/1998 in Admiralty Suit No. 30/1998 is maintained, save and except the finding recorded therein that a claim of unpaid insurance premia is not necessaries supplied to the ship. 60. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1049 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eans of bail bonds, then he is entitled to be released on bail. The High Court, thus, in our opinion, did not consider the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In this view of the matter, the order releasing the accused on bail by the Special Judge as well as the order of the High Court in revision are quashed. The accused should be taken into custody forthwith. After the accused is taken into custody, the trial may commence. 4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1048 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n-recurring income under section 10(3) r.w. section 56, we hold, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in respect of questions (a) to (o) that the amount is not so taxable. We also hold that the amount received is a capital receipt and that it is not exigible to capital gains tax under section 45 because no "transfer" within the meaning of section 2(47) is involved on the surrender of tenancy/possessory rights. We further hold that there is no distinction between a statutory tenant and contractual tenant for the purpose of determining the taxability of the compensation received on surrender of tenancy rights. The compensation cannot be brought under section 10(3) on the ground that it does not fall under section 45. Only revenue receipts are covered under section 10 and not capital receipts. The compensation cannot be considered as "income" within the meaning of section 2(24). 13. The assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1047 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ment. Ofcourse, the petitioner did not raise such pleas before the Courts below, but it is for the prosecution to bring on record while charging the accused, that they have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 55 of the Act and 100(4) of the Code. For these reasons, I am satisfied that prosecution has failed to prove that P.Ws. 1 to 3 have followed such a procedure. Consequently, for these lacunae, the search and seizure is vitiated and the conviction is wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. 15. Before parting with the judgment, I am of the considered view that it is high time to impression upon the Excise Officials and other Police Officials to adhere to the sacrosanct provisions of Sec. 55 of the Act and Sec. 100(4) of the Code whenever, on suspicion, they intercept a vehicle and conduct search and seizure; inasmuch as such searches involve fundamental rights of the citizens.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1046 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 3 rule 2 CPC. It is true that power under order 13 rule 2 CPC could be exercised liberally and that "good cause" requires lesser degree of proof man that of "sufficient cause". (Re. Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors., AIR (1964) SC 993). May be that order is erroneous, however, it cannot be said that such order passed by the trial court could be interfered under Section 115 Of CPC. It cannot be said that the trial court has acted with material irregulatiry in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the applications filed by the appellant and that the order. If allowed, would occasion a failure of justice. The words "material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction" do not cover either errors of fact or law. (Re. Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria and Ors., 1953 SCR 136). It is open to the appellant to raise this contention at the appellate stage, if decree is passed against him. Hence, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1045 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... om the District Valuation Officer, i.e. after the search in the group cases and particularly when in the search proceedings under section 132, the main partner had admitted to have incurred unaccounted expenditure towards construction of various projects undertaken by them and this unaccounted expenditure is simultaneously taken as "on money" from the persons who had purchased the respective flats?" (ii) "Whether, the decision rendered by the Tribunal is not perverse since it does not consider the available facts on record?" 2. We have heard Mr BB Naik learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Having gone through the orders of both the appellate authorities, we do not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the appellate authorities after appreciating the evidence on record. In this view of the matter, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order. 4. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1044 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... notices did not survive in view of the said impugned orders, both dated 2nd September 1994. Therefore, the cause of action for the suits would be the date of the said impugned orders. The starting point of limitation would be the date of the said orders and not the act of implementation or execution of the said orders. The suits, therefore, ought to have been filed within six months from the date of said orders i.e. 2nd September 1994. Having failed to file suits within prescribed period of limitation the same were rightly dismissed on this count. CONCLUSION 14. I, for the reasons given hereinabove and also for the reasons given by the trial Court, hold that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the trial Court in the respective suits. No case is made out to upset the findings and the consequent orders dismissing the suits holding it to be barred by limitation. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1043 - SUPREME COURT
Rajendra Tiwary Versus Basudeo Prasad and Anr. ... ... ... ... ..... this view of the matter we cannot but hold that the High Court erred in remanding the case to the first appellate court for determination of the title of the parties to the suit premises and for granting the decree under Order VII Rule 7. 17. However, we make it clear that this judgment does not preclude the plaintiffs from filing a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of the possession of the suit premises against the defendant. If such a suit is filed within three months from today we direct that the same shall be tried along with suit filed by the defendant. Title Suit No. 232/1983, in the court of Sub-Judge, Siwan (Exbt. 11) for specific performance of the contract against the said Kedar Nath Sinha and the plaintiff. 18. In the result the judgment of the High Court under challenge is set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs (respondent) is dismissed. The appeal of the defendant (appellant) is allowed accordingly but in the circumstances of the case without costs.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1042 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Registrar of Companies is a public document and coupled with the Annual Report published by the Company can be taken into consideration by this Court and it shows that the petitioner resigned as Director of the Company on 4.10.1999 and he ceased to be on the Board of the Company from that date. All the cheques pertaining to the cases were drawn between the period 3.2.2000 to 15.2.2000 and during that period, the petitioner did not function as Chairman and Director of the first accused company and he was also not in-charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company when the cause of action arose for non payment of the cheque amounts on receipt of respective statutory notices. Hence the proceedings in all the cases as against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 9. In the result, all the petitions are allowed and the proceedings in all the Calendar Cases are quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Connected Crl.M.P.Nos. 9741 to 9752 of 2000 are closed.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1041 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rd of the company will take a decision either to retain the paid up value at ₹ 50 or reduce it to ₹ 10 after refunding the balance ₹ 40 and effect reduction in the share capital. 14. Insofar as the registration of 177 shares, since the stand of the respondents is that the transfer instruments are defective, we direct the company to return the share certificates along with the transfer instruments, if they are with the company, within 15 days from the date of this order to the petitioners. The petitioners may relodge the same with proper instruments of transfer. The company should register the transfer of these shares within 15 days of relodgement. 15. Insofar as the issue of duplicate certificates is concerned, considering the nature of shareholding in the company and the controversies surrounding the same, we direct the company to keep all the requests received for issue of duplicate certificates pending, till the Gauhati High Court disposes of the appeal.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1040 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or exclusive selling rights is upheld. It is the defendants to stand suffer irreparable loss if they are restrained from selling their products particularly when the plaintiff has failed to create any significant market for the said products. During existence of agreement for about one year, the total sales made by the plaintiff in respect of said capsules was around 2 lacs capsules. More than 60 of the stocks supplied by defendants to plaintiff is still lying unsold with plaintiff as is clear from the stock statement sent by plaintiff on 24th January, 2001. 19. For these reasons, I am of the view that ex parte injunction granted on 3rd May, 2001 is liable to be vacated. Accordingly, application being is NO. 5803/2001 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC is allowed and is No. 4380/2001 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff is hereby rejected. Ex parte injunction granted on 3rd May, 2001 is hereby vacated. plaintiff shall also pay payment of ₹ 10,000/- as cost.
........
|
