|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 520 Records
-
2004 (5) TMI 604 - COMPANY LAW BOARD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... nt by the second respondent against the members of the families of the petitioners against whom the second respondent has a grouse and wanted to eliminate them from St. Mary's Group". could be remedied and the interests of the both the groups could be safeguarded only when either of the groups sells their shares and part their ways in the interest of the ACECPL. It is on record that the petitioners were taking the initiative to form a new company for running the similar business and that the second respondent is found to be in the helm of affairs of the ACECPL. Therefore, the petitioners will transfer their shares at the value determined by a valuer in favour of the respondents and for the purpose of appointing a valuer acceptable to both the groups, the matter will be called on 21.07.2004 At 10.30. A.M. 16. Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed of in these lines, reserving the right to appoint a valuer and issue consequential directions. No order as to cost.
-
2004 (5) TMI 603 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oppression in the hands of unscrupulous complainants. 4. The learned Magistrate, I note, has received Exts. P1 and P2 on record and looked into them to consider whether dropping of proceedings as per the dictum in KM. Mathew's case, 1992 (1) KLT 1, can be resorted to. This may not be strictly correct. Adducing evidence at that stage of proceedings is certainly not contemplated or warranted. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, notwithstanding the fact that the Court had looked into Exts. P1 and P2, I am satisfied that the conclusion of the learned Magistrate that accused 3 to 5 (respondents herein) do not deserve to be proceeded against is eminently correct. In that view of the matter, notwithstanding the reception of Exts.P1 and P2 at an inappropriate stage, I am satisfied that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference. The challenge raised in these revisions in these circumstances must fail. 5. In the result there revision petitions are dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tage more so because of the fact under the guidelines applicable the 4th respondent must have paid the lease amount upto the period of 18.9.2004. Therefore we direct the respondent State to call for fresh tenders and take a decision in regard to acceptance of a fresh bid and grant new contract on or before 1.7.2004. Till such time the 4th respondent will be permitted to operate the weigh bridge and on the acceptance of the tender by 1.7.2004 new contractor whose bid is accepted shall be entitled to run the same for the period agreed therein. On the effective termination of the contract of the 4th respondent w.e.f. 30.6.2004 if any excess amount is paid by the 4th respondent the same shall be refundable to him by the respondent Government. 26. For the reasons stated above this appeal succeeds. The impugned orders of the courts below are set aside as also the contract awarded to the 4th respondent by the respondent-State as per its order dated 19.9.2002. The appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 601 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e facts, to indicate such intention, though have been pleaded, as indicated earlier, but no such finding has been recorded. The mere fact of legally not entitled to the possession would not fulfil the ingredients of definition of "land grabber" and "land grabbing". The High Court, we find, has only repeated briefly whatever has been discussed by the Special Court without adverting to the other facts and circumstances and the question involved as discussed above. The orders, therefore, passed by the Special Court and the High Court are not sustainable. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and orders passed by the High Court and the Special Court are set aside and the suit filed by Respondent No. 3 through his alleged general power of attorney holder Tirupathiah in the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act shall stand dismissed. Possession of the suit property be restored to the appellant herein forthwith. Costs easy.
-
2004 (5) TMI 600 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 3019A, according to which both the groups of share-holders shall exercise their respective voting rights in the general meetings in such a way that the rights granted under the shareholders agreement to the respective parties are not in any way affected. The nominees of both the petitioners and the 2nd respondents should thrive to adhere to the same spirit in the board meetings also. 38. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order as to cost. While doing so, I also note the allegation of the petitioners that the respondents had used the funds of the company in defending this petition which should not be permit-led as the disputes in the petition relate to the shareholders. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, that most of the allegations relate to the conduct of the nominee directors of the 2nd respondents on the board in discharging their functions as directors in the affairs of the company, I am not taking cognizance of this allegation.
-
2004 (5) TMI 599 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ave been no dispute but the defendant travels much more when it states that no one should take Chayawanprash during the summer months as it is not good for health during that season. 11. The defendant could not have taken up a plea that Chayawanprash , which is a competitor to Amritprash, is bad during the summer months and since the defendant has resorted to the same, the same is disparaging and , Therefore, the case in hand calls for an action in terms of the prayer made in the injunction application. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I allow the application filed by the plaintiff and issue a temporary injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, distributors, stockists and all others acting on its behalf from telecasting the impugned Himani Sona Chandi Amritprash T.V. Commercial, during the pendency of the present suit. The application stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. CS(OS) 433/2004 12. Let the suit be listed on 14th July, 2004 for orders.
-
2004 (5) TMI 598 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tor, it would be clear as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any commission or not from the respondent on account of the supply of the helicopters by respondent to the Ministry of defense. The letter written by the manufacturer of helicopters to respondent regarding payment of commission to petitioner is not binding on the respondent Company. Therefore, there are no good grounds to pass restraint orders against the respondent from receiving and Government of India from releasing the payments and thereby jeopardises the deal regarding supply of the helicopters which appear to be urgently required. The respondent appears to be not willing to supply the same without full payment from Government of India. 9. Accordingly, this Court finds that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and there are no sufficient grounds for grant of any of the reliefs as prayed. 10. The petition stands dismissed accordingly. 11. The interim orders passed by this Court stand vacated.
-
2004 (5) TMI 597 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o. 382 of 2003, decided on March 13, 2003', Naresh Chander Gupta v. District Magistrate and Ors.. In that decision this Court has referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Subhra Mukherjee v. Bharat Coking Cal Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 312 Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1998 SC 1651 ; Horizons Limited v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 ; Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1996 AWC (Supp) 1.20 (SC) (NOC) (1996) 4 SCC 622 ; C.I.T. v. Minakshi Mills, AIR 1967 SC 819 ; Jugilal Kainapat v. C.I.T., AIR 1969 SC 93 ; Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v. State of Bihar, 1964 (6) SCR 895 AIR 1965 SC 40 and State of U. P. v. Renusagar Power Co., (1988) 4 SCC 59, etc., In view of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate personality has been applied. In our opinion it should be applied In this case also as the attempt is to avoid huge tax dues. ( 11. ) For the reasons given above, this petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 596 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in view of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Itochu Corporation in ITA 17/2003 decided today itself, i.e., 13.05.2004. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 595 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... except those in relation to enforcement of the foreign award. If so, then the present application is not maintainable. 11. Accordingly, I dismiss this application on the grounds- the company, in the affairs of which the petition has been filed, is not a party to the relevant agreements containing arbitration clause; it cannot be added a as a party now even if it is willing; there are certain allegations on matters which are not covered under the arbitration agreements which can be examined only by this Board; bifurcation of matters between this Board and Arbitral Tribunal is not permissible; this application has been filed under Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act of 1996, contrary to the terms of the arbitration clause which specifically excludes the invocation of the provisions of the said Act. 12. The respondents will file their replies to the petition by 1.7.2004 and rejoinder to be filed by 25.7.2004. The petition will be heard on 4/8/2004 at 2.30 p.m.
-
2004 (5) TMI 594 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... penalty proceedings have been initiated, it cannot be assumed that the requisite satisfaction was arrived at in the absence of the same being spelt out by the order of the Assessing Authority. Though section 271(1)(c) does not prescribe any particular form or language in which the requisite satisfaction is to be recorded, the bare minimum is that the language must clearly spell out the reasons as to why the Assessing Officer feels satisfied about the guilt of the assessee. In the present case, such a satisfaction has not been spelt out in the assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and applying the same to the facts of the present case, we hold that the non-reaching of satisfaction as required by section 271(1)(c) is a jurisdictional defect and, therefore, the penalty proceedings are bad on that score also. 13. In the result, the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 593 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the case of Prithipal Singh & Co. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the issue on merits. The Apex Court took note of the various reasonings adopted by the High Court for arriving at the conclusion. It is not a case of summary dismissal or deciding the appeal on a technical ground. Therefore, in our opinion, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pritipal Singh & Co. (supra) got merged with the decision of the Supreme Court. As such, the ruling of the Supreme Court is binding on us under article 141. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Galaxy Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. (supra), in the following decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Prithipal Singh & Co.’s case (supra). 10. We, therefore, respectfully following the precedent decide this appeal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 592 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on the authenticity or reliability of these reports. For the subsequent period, when the correct method of test, namely, Gas Layer Chromatography technique was followed, the Central Revenue Control Laboratory also confirmed the presence of alcohol. Therefore, the failure of that laboratory to detect alcohol during the earlier test can only be on account of use of wrong method of test earlier. Further, it is also the un-controverted contention of the appellant that the ingredients used by it for production remained the same during the period of show cause notice as well as the later period. In fact, the appellants have maintained record relating to production on regular basis. In these circumstance, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned adjudicating authority is not sustainable on facts on record or the law pronounced by the Apex Court. The impugned order is required to be set aside with consequential relief, to the appellants. We do so, and allow the appeals.
-
2004 (5) TMI 591 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Since the proceedings were not pending at the relevant time, i.e., on the date of dismissal of the workmen by virtue of the interim order granted by the High Court, the preliminary objection raised by the appellant Companies as to the very maintainability of complaint under Section 33A is valid and sustainable. The question set out above in the beginning of this judgment is answered in the negative. Thus, viewed from any angle in our considered opinion the impugned order cannot be sustained. The preliminary objection raised by the appellant companies is upheld and consequently the complaint made by the respondent-workmen is dismissed as not maintainable. We must, however, make it clear that this order does not prejudice or preclude the respondent workmen from questioning the validity and correctness of the order of their dismissal from service by raising appropriate dispute in accordance with law. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
2004 (5) TMI 590 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... t the above view of this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel has cited the relevant order of the Apex Court, which was passed on17.2.2003 in Civil Appeal No. D19381 of 2002 in the case of CCE v. Vikrant Tyers Ltd. vide 2003 (157) ELT A 134. It is, further, pointed out by the Counsel that, in view of the Apex Court's order dated17.2.2003 as clarified in its order dated 13.10.2003, the Tribunal's larger bench has returned a reference made by this bench, holding that similar demands of duty on imported natural rubber is not sustainable. Counsel has also filed a copy of Final Order No. 880 to909 dated 28.10.2003 of this Bench in the case of London Rubber Co. Indict Ltd. and Others v. CC Chennai, wherein we allowed the assessees' appeal by following the orders of the Apex Court and the Tribunal's larger bench. 2. In the instant appeals, we follow the above judicial authorities and set aside the impugned demands. The appeals stand allowed. (dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2004 (5) TMI 589 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plaint inasmuch as according to the prosecution the incident in question took place at about 1.30 p.m. and a complaint was lodged only at 3.15 a.m. on 5.4.1980. Though the distance is about 30 miles from the place of incident, the complainant had the facility of using the tractors available in the village and they did use the same for travelling to the Police Station. In such circumstances this unexplained long delay also creates a doubt in our mind as to the genuineness of the prosecution case. Once we are not convinced with the evidence of PW-6 then there is no other material to base a conviction on the appellant hence we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt therefore this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction of the 2 courts below are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. From the records we notice that the appellant is on bail. If so his bailbonds shall stand discharged.
-
2004 (5) TMI 588 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ration to transfer ₹ 28.85 lacs, wrongly appropriated to the account of M/s Aditya Flour Mills, to the account of M/s Katihar Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Consequent upon such appropriation, the loan taken by the said company shall stand repaid. We further direct the concerned District Judge to restore possession of the assets (handed over by respondent no.2 - corporation to respondent no.4 - company on 19.3.2002) to M/s Katihar Flour Mills (P) Ltd. In this connection, the District Judge is directed to draw-up an inventory of the assets. In case of shortfall, it would be open to M/s Katihar Flour Mills (P) Ltd. to take such steps as they may be advised. Consequent upon our setting-aside the agreement dated 26.4.2002, we direct the corporation to return the amount paid to it by respondent no.4 on 19.3.2002. Appeal is accordingly allowed, with no orders as to costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order is required to be passed in contempt petition No.101 of 2003.
-
2004 (5) TMI 587 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ity, whoever is liable to be exempted be exempted. The circular cannot be add to whittle the scope of the statutory notification. It is for the assessig officer to consider that aspect. Therefore, it will be open for the respondent to proceed as if the circular has not been issued. It is open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with the notification and it will be open for the petitioners to take the defence as per the notification. It may be noted that the Court has not expressed any opinion about the contents of the notification. After hearing the parties, the writ petition is disposed of.
-
2004 (5) TMI 586 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... Krishna Cloth House are concerned, the trading additions of ₹ 2,98,995 and ₹ 2,83,885 for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 on the same reasoning and the basis as taken in the case of M/s. Rakesh Binny Show Room have been made and the learned CIT(A) while following the said decision has concluded to delete both these additions by holding that the facts of this case are identical and the issue involved is similar and in that case we have upheld the order of the learned CIT(A). Since the facts of these cases are similar to the facts involved in the case of M/s. Rakesh Binny Show Room and the learned CIT(A) has also followed his order in the case of M/s. Rakesh Binny Show Room in these cases for both the years and we have upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) in that case. Therefore, following the said decision, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue. 8. As a result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 585 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... value of more than ₹ 12 lakhs has been accepted as explained. The addition in dispute has been made on account of slight variation in description of jewellery disclosed in the reports filed with the return and reports of the Departmental valuers prepared at the time of search. Here again Revenue authorities went back to report for assessment year 1978-79 without considering latest report for assessment year 1984-85. In my view assessees were entitled to benefit of weight of jewellery disclosed in the returns as it is well-known fact that Indian ladies keep changing design of jewellery from time to time. Having in mind detailed explanation rendered by the assessee (copies available at pp. 104 to 113 of the paper book) I am inclined to treat the entire jewellery found with assessee as fully explained. The addition made in the hands of the assessee for undisclosed income, is unjustified and is directed to be deleted. 7. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed.
........
|
