|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 478 Records
-
2001 (4) TMI 958 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In this suit, the 2nd appellant is the 2nd defendant and he had undertaken to pay the necessary court-fee upon the suit being decreed. The 2nd appellant therefore shall pay the Court fee within eight weeks from date. The findings of the court below as regards the reliefs of dissolution of partnership and consequential allotment of 1/5th share etc. are all confirmed. But in view of the findings above, there will be a decree in favour of the appellants for recovery of Rs.1.00 lakh together with l/5th share in the profits made by the 1st respondent out of the sale of the suit property together with interest at 12% p.a from date of decree since the transaction from which the money was advanced was for a commercial venture. The respondent is directed to render accounts in respect of his sale of the suit property. Both the appellants shall pay the proper court-fee on the amount recoverable. S.A. No. 499 of 2000 is therefore allowed and S. A. No. 1311 of 2000 is dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 957 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 31(4) of the Act Since appellant had already made an application before this Court which is a Court of competent jurisdiction, this Court alone is entitled to exercise Jurisdiction in the present case and all subsequent applications should be made to this Court as the first application had been made in this Court by the appellant herein. We make it clear that the statutory provision will obviously override any agreement between the parties and a private contract cannot override a statute. 64. In the result we allow the appeals and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the learned trial Judge. 65. The section 20 application filed by the appellant is therefore maintainable before this Court and the same may be placed before the appropriate Bench immediately for early disposal in the light of the observation made above. The order passed on section 41 application is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 956 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ing the Appellants not to take 7.7.2000 as the relevant date. 47. Shri Setalvad had stated that the Respondent had treated the Appellant's case discriminately vis-a-vis the acquisition of Bestfoods by Unilever Plc. The Respondent has explained in its written reply in detail how the facts relating to acquisition of Bestfoods is distinguishable from the facts of acquisition of Burmah Castrol by the Appellants. In the light of the information available before me, as provided by the parties, I am inclined to hold that the acquisition of Bestfoods is not exactly identical with the acquisition of Castrol (India) Ltd, to be treated identically. 48. In the light of the above discussion I am of the view that the impugned order is to be sustained and the relevant date for the purpose of deciding the offer price to the share holders of Castrol (India) Ltd should be 14.3.2000 and not 7.7.2000. 49. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 955 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the opinion given by the departmental chemical authorities that the goods were solutions. He has termed the opinion as cryptic. He has also relied upon the judgement of the Tribunal which cautions the officers on basing reliance on cryptic opinion of the chemical examiner. The various contentions made in the appeal memorandum do not in any manner disprove the grounds on which the Commissioner made his findings. 6. As regards the extended period, the appeal memorandum does not contain any submission at all. The only claim made is that the belief of the Commissioner was erroneous. 7. On a perusal, we find that the Commissioner had passed a well reasoned order dealing with the assessee's appeal on merits as well as on limitation, and we notice that the absolutely no arguments have been placed in the appeal memorandum to show that the Commissioner's opinion was founded on wrong assumption, we hold that the impugned order sustains. The appeal from the revenue is dismissed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 954 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ied on surmises and conjectures in various parts of his Judgment and the finding of the learned Judge that PNB acted as the agent of both Metropolitan and Elgee Is also based on no evidence. The provision of section 28 of N.I. Act also has no manner of application to the fact of the case and the learned Judge erred by relying on the same. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, this Court allows the appeal and dismisses the suit. The Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge Is set aside. There will be, however, no order as to costs. P. K. Chattopadhyay. J.- I agree. 171. Appeal allowed Later After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for the respondent prays for stay of operation of the decree and has drawn our attention to an interim order 27th March, 1991. We have perused the said order but we are not inclined to grant any stay having regard to the fact that the appellant before us Is a Nationalised Bank. Therefore, the prayer for stay is rejected.
-
2001 (4) TMI 953 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ble for the Government to contend that it is not bound by its own instructions. 8. In that view of the matter, the Court is unable to agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that notwithstanding the above clarification of the Government, the Ordinance in question was still required to be enforced for the period of its operation. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal and the corresponding orders of the ACST and STO seeking to enforce the aforementioned Ordinance are hereby set aside. 10. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. 11. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.
-
2001 (4) TMI 952 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Phukan, JJ. ORDER Appeal is admitted. No stay.
-
2001 (4) TMI 951 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quent questions raised as follows - (1) Consignment of notified agricultural produce which are transported in the declared market area in the State of Assam are not liable to cess u/s 21 of the Act in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Chandra Kailash's Case and Company (supra) and Shalimar's case (Supra) (2) The Board has no power and authority to levy and collect cess on the agricultural produce on behalf of the Market Committee as per Section 21 of the Act. (3) Either Board or the Market Committee is not permitted to realise cess on the agricultural produce transported into Assam by Truck at the different check gates erected for the purpose of levy and collection of cess since no sale or purchase takes place at such places. (4) Refund of the cess already realized is refused. 54. This reference is answered accordingly. Now, the case would be listed before the Appropriate Bench for final disposal in accordance with law. 55. Reference answered accordingly.
-
2001 (4) TMI 950 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dvocate of this Court as Special Officer who shall visit upon notice to both the parties the said properties in question and shall submit a report to this Court as to who are in physical possession of the aforesaid three plots of land and since when and what is the status claimed by the persons who are occupying the said premises. The Special Officer shall be paid remuneration assessed at 500 G.Ms, to be paid by the plaintiff at the first instance. 14. Let this matter appear in the list under the heading marked for further orders fortnight hence. 15. Upon furnishing a xerox copy of the original Register being Ext. A, it is permitted to be taken away by the defendant. Accordingly, the same is returned. Similarly upon furnishing a xerox copy of the probate, the same is allowed to be taken away. The same is returned accordingly. 16. Special Officer, Registrar. Original Side, Department and all parties to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order upon usual undertaking.
-
2001 (4) TMI 949 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d the legislative purpose is to promote efficacy of banking and of ensuring that in commercial or contractual transactions cheques are not dishonoured and credibility in transacting business through cheques is maintained". Further, it is also not of any relevant significance in law to make a distinction between a situation where the cheque is issued before the closure of the account or subsequent to the closure of the account. In other words, where the closure of the account precedes or succeeds, the issuance of cheque in both the situations, it would be an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the order of the Trial Court is set aside. The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹ 50,000/- and out of the said fine, ₹ 45,000/- shall be payable as compensation to the complainant and the balance of ₹ 5,000/- shall go to the State.
-
2001 (4) TMI 948 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 's counsel to categorise the cases firstly as those in which there is no correspondence and secondly where the Railway Administration acknowledges liability, does not find any support from the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The limitation prescribed under Section 17(1)(a) is three years from the date of entrustment of goods for carriage by Railway, irrespective of the fact whether or not the Railway Administration acknowledges a part of the claim. 22. Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, extracted above empowers the Tribunal to entertain an application beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 17(1)(a), if the applicant satisfies the Claims Tribunal that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. 23. In the result, the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A. No. 8 of 1990 dt. 21-9-1992 holding that the claim is barred by limitation is upheld and C.M.A. No. 2028 of 1992 is dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... re admitted after June 1999. The teaching in the college has been suspended by this Court's order dated 3.5.99. As such, the students of the first academic session, uptil now, have only studied for a period of 2 1/2 years, the students of the second batch have studied for 11/2 years and the students of the third batch have studied for approximately 6-months. Hence, it is ordered that these students would only be permitted to sit in the examinations as per the regulations of the Dental Council of India laying down the requirement of attendance of minimum classes for each year for the four years duration of the BDS course. In view of the foregoing, the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.22222 of 1997 and 8464-8465 of 1999 stand disposed of accordingly. The Transfer Petition No.437 of 1999 is also allowed; writ petition No.8299 of 1999 pending before the High Court stands transferred to this Court and is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 946 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... l, JJ ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 945 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2000 we find that no substantial question of law as suggested or otherwise arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The appeals stand rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 944 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e to the plaintiff against huge amount of money bares the ill designs and a bad faith of the defendant in getting this domain name registered. 47. In view of the settled position of law enunciated down the lines and particularly in Cardservice International Inc. Vs. Micgee (42 USPQ 2nd 1850) that the domain name service functions as the trade mark and is not a mere address or like finding number on the internet and, therefore, is entitled to equal protection as trade mark for it also identifies the internet site to those who reach it, much like a person's name identifies a specific company, the defendants have to be injuncted upon by way of permanent injunction. 48. As a result, the suit is decreed and the defendants, their directors, servants, agents, licensees, franchises, representatives are restrained in terms of prayers (A), (B) and (C) of the plaint. Plaintiff is given the liberty to approach the Network Solution Inc. to get the domain name transferred in its name.
-
2001 (4) TMI 943 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... possession of the machinery on usual terms and conditions including payment of royalty. While determining the amount of royalty, the Receiver shall take into consideration the amount of arrears or lease money. In case, the Defendant No. 1 does not execute the agency agreement within a period of eight weeks from the date on which offer is made by the Receiver to the Defendant No. 1, then the Receiver shall take actual possession of the machinery and hand the same over to the Plaintiffs, Till the Receiver takes possession, ad interim order in terms of prayer clause (f) shall operate. o p /o p Notice of Motion disposed of. o p /o p Receiver to act on simple copy of the order duly authenticated by the Associate/Personal Secretary of the Court. o p /o p Certified Copy expedited. o p /o p 14. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the Defendants, it is directed that the Receiver shall not take possession of the machinery for a period of six weeks from today. o p /o p
-
2001 (4) TMI 942 - COMPANY LAW BOARD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... holding of the petitioners group had also gone up from 10 to 3010. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim ignorance of the allotment of shares in the company. Therefore, we find that there has been unexplained and inordinate delay in challenging these allotments. o p /o p 7. In regard to the plea of rental income, we are not in a position to agree with the plea of the petitioners in view of the fact that the rental income depends upon the facilities made available at the demised premises. Merely because the neighbouring properties fetch higher rate of rent, it does not mean that the respondents have mismanaged the company by letting out the properties of the company at a lower rate. The plea of the petitioner is not convincing. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioners have not made out any act of oppression or mismanagement in the affairs of the company and that the petition must fail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. There is no order as to cost. o p /o p
-
2001 (4) TMI 941 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in section of the said Act. 35. Even otherwise, when the property is in custody, leave of the Court having plenary jurisdiction, keeping in view the principles adumbrated in Order 40 of Code of Civil Procedure must be obtained. 36. Such leave is also necessary having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 10 of the Companies Act and in particular the fact that this Court also exercise power of supervision under Article 227 of the Constitution over such Courts, we are of the opinion that it was incumbent upon the Advocate-Commissioner to obtain leave of this Court. The reference is answered accordingly. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank Mr. E. Ramanadham, prays that in terms of Article 133-A of the Constitution of India, leave may be granted to move the Supreme Court of India. We are of the opinion that this case does not involve any question of general importance, inasmuch as the judgment is based upon the decisions of the Apex Court. Leave is refused.
-
2001 (4) TMI 940 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the direction adversely and seriously affected the valuable rights of the appellant over the immovable property in dispute. We are of the view that the High Court committed a manifest error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant, seeking intervention in the award case. The application of the appellant ought not have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly when the appellant was not a party to the earlier orders. The appellant was denied opportunity of putting forth its case before the High Court. 7. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the appellant for intervention before the High court is allowed. The case is remitted to the High Court for disposal on its merit in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties including the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 939 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... petitioners and as such, we give the option to the first petitioner to apply for these shares (21,000 shares) along with consideration at the same price at which shares were allotted to the third and fourth respondents within a month from the date of order and the company shall get the shares transferred from the third and fourth respondents to the first petitioner within a month thereafter. 12. We also note that the third respondent having subscribed to the right entitlement in respect of 3,250 shares and also to the 21,000 shares, has received adequate compensation by way of dividend and as such she is in no way prejudicially affected. 13. Even though, the hearing of this petition was concluded on 11-10-2000, the issue of this order was deferred in view of the pendency of proceedings in another family company, viz., CP 6-1-1998, order in respect of which has also been issued as of date. 14. With above directions, we dispose of these petitions without any order as to costs.
........
|
