|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 855 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 1105 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ment of Sri.P. Muraleedharan to the post of Executive Officer, since the non-approval has resulted in affecting the affairs of the Devaswom. He was appointed as directed by the Commissioner. But the request was rejected by the Commissioner as the revision petition is still pending. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that already the stay petition stands dismissed. It is also informed that the revision petition has not been disposed of so far. 3. Already the time limit fixed by this Court as per Exhibit-P1 judgment to dispose of the revision petition is over. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed on the stay petition has also not been served on the petitioner so far. Therefore, the 1st respondent will see that the revision petition filed as per Exhibit-P2 mentioned in Exhibit-P1 judgment will be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... order of the learned Sessions Judge refusing bail to the appellant herein, which was later confirmed by the High Court, and also considering the fact that some of co-accused have already been granted bail, we allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be also released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1103 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the part of Panchayat to take action, the Dy. Director has to assume the powers of Panchayat and take action as is required to be taken under sub- Section (3). In the instant case, the complainant/respondent had made many complaints to the Panchayat and Panchayat had failed to take any action. Assumption of power by the Dy. Director in such circumstances was quite justified. 11. The Dy. Director has rightly acted under Section 66 (5) of the Act. This is not a case of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Dy. Director. He has rightly taken into consideration the report of the Commissioner particularly when the Petitioner has failed to produce any document showing permission to make such construction. In view of this, I do not find that the orders passed by the Authorities below suffer from any illegality or infirmity. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Authorities below. 12. The petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1102 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e aforesaid procedural guidelines shall also be applicable to all quasi-judicial authorities in respect of hearing of appeals, revisions, review applications/ interlocutory applications, where there are no specific rules prescribed for hearing under a specific law like Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, etc. 20. Before parting with the matter, I may place on record appreciation of the services rendered by Mr.Anand Grover, Advocate, Amicus Curiae and all other advocates and also assistance rendered by the Chief Secretary, Law and Judiciary with officers of the General Administration Department of the Government of Maharashtra to this Court. 21. The Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra is directed to circulate this judgment to all concerned along with his letter emphasising the need to follow it, so as to exhibit transparency in the decision making process. The compliance report submitted to this Court will be highly appreciated.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1101 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the decree holder had also relied upon the full bench of the Madras High Court in O.RM. P RM. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. S.L.Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1960 Madras 207 holding that payment under Order 21 Rule 1 must be unconditional and if any restrictions are placed while depositing the money in the court, the interest does not cease to run. He has also relied upon the judgment of this court in Kali Charan Sharma Vs. NOIDA MANU/DE/1367/2008 holding that interest does not cease to run where monies are deposited as security for stay of execution. 21. The conclusion reached by me is inconsonance with the principle leading to the aforesaid two judgments. 22. Accordingly, it is directed that out of the monies received in this court pursuant to attachment, a further sum of Rs.1,02,418/- be released to the decree holder within ten days of today and the balance amount, if any, be refunded to the judgment debtor; with these directions the execution petition is disposed of as satisfied.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1100 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ach one of them in the offence alleged. The statements shown to us as allegations amounting to prima facie evidence against them, according to us, are very bald and vague statements on the basis of which no case could be made out. 22. We are of the opinion that such allegations do not make out a case of prima facie evidence. Consequently, we have no other option but to quash the proceedings as against the appellants herein i.e. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and Accused Nos. 6 to 8. While doing so, however, we make it clear that we express no opinion so far as the allegations made in the said charge sheet against Accused No. 1 and other accused persons are concerned. We also make it clear that the observations made herein by us are only with respect to the criminal proceedings and none of these observations shall be construed as an opinion of ours so far civil liability, if any, is concerned. 23. Both the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1099 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lity. Therefore, the complainant has to establish the fact that there existed legally recoverable debt payable to him by the accused as on the date of the cheque in question. The complainant in the instant case has failed to establish that she lent the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused, and that the accused delivered the said cheque to herself (complainant) on the date on which it is purported to have been issued or on any specific date. Therefore the Trial Court was quite justified in not raising the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court was quite justified in dismissing the complaint of the complainant and thereby acquitting the accused of the said offence. Hence while answering the point raised by me supra in the 'affirmative' and against the appellant-complainant, the present appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1098 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r the circumstances and in view of the above, ad- interim order passed by this Court dated 07/08/2006 is made absolute till final disposal of the suit, without prejudice to the rights and contention of the respective parties in the suit. The learned trial Court is directed to decide and dispose of the suit at the earliest but not later than 31/03/2010. All the parties concerned are directed to cooperate for early disposal of the suit within the stipulated time as stated hereinabove. It goes without saying that the learned trial Court shall decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law on its own merits on the basis of the evidence led and materials brought on record, without, in any way, being influenced by the present arrangement and/or interim order. 6. With this, the present Special Civil Application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs. 7. Registry is directed to send the writ of this order to the learned trial Court immediately.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1097 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vailable. The said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is followed by this Court in Puri Marine Products (supra). Thus, since the revisional authority has mechanically accepted objections of the A.G. Audit Report without application of its mind, order passed in exercise of its suo motu power of revision stood vitiated. 15. In view of the above, the revisional authority cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Rule 80 of the OST Rules read with Rule 22 of the CST (0) Rules on the basis of the self same audit objections which have been rejected by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceeding merely because the revisional authority does not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer even though the said view is sustainable in law. 16. Accordingly, the Orders Dated 31.12.2007 passed for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 under Annexure-6 series and the notice dated 19.02.2008 under Annexure-7 are hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. B.S. Chauhan, C.J. I agree.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1096 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it. Furthermore, the applicant was satisfied about the information furnished to him in March, 2007, it is within time frame granted by the CIC, i.e., before 31.3.2007. The applicant appeared before this Court and also supported this version as recorded in the order dated 18.12.2008. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the petition is entitled to succeed. It is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.5.2007 and 2.7.2007 are hereby quashed. Consequentially, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount; the CIC shall ensure that same is repaid or reimbursed within four weeks from today.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1095 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on Bench on 9th January, 2009. Had the Club or its Managing Committee were not aware about the pending litigation between the parties, the cheque of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the Counsel ought not to have been issued by the Club. Mere allegations of the four members that they came to know about the earlier proceedings only on 24th February, 2009 is unbelievable and is just a figment of the imagination. In totality, it shows that the present litigation is another round of litigation which is unsustainable and not permissible in the eyes of the law. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiffs in their favour for grant of interim injunction nor the balance of convenience lies in their favour. Prima facie, it appears that no ground of fraud is sustainable in order to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the court. The application is wholly misconceived, not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1094 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n provided was four years from the date of registration and not from the date of knowledge. 17. Submission of Mr. Sundaravaradan that the subsequent amendment carried out by Act 1 of 2000 was only clarificatory in nature cannot be accepted. The State advisedly used the words "four years" from the date of registration. Only at a later stage, wisdom dawned on them that they may not be able to find out the evasion of stamp duty within the aforementioned period, amended the said provision so that the period of limitation may start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of registration. The said amendment is, thus, also not retrospective in nature. It is now well-settled that the Court cannot supply casus omissus. See Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 447 18. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1093 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... padia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and Anr. (2000) 7 SCC 183 has held that where the complaint is filed before expiry of 15 days, prescribed waiting period, instead of dismissing the complaint, the Magistrate should postpone the taking of cognizance. The aforesaid judgment applies to the facts of the case with double vigour because here the cognizance had in fact been taken, much after the expiry of the above said 15 days prescribed time limit. 3. In view of the above stated position, appeal is accepted, impugned judgment is set-aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.4.2009. Record of the trial Court be returned immediately, alongwith a copy of this judgment. Registry shall ensure that the record reaches the trial Court before the above said date fixed for the appearance of the parties in that Court.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1092 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Petition filled without pre-deposit - appeals are pending - Act was amended deleting the condition for pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal - notices issued to the Petitioner to make the deposit of the 50% of the total demand - Entertain' - sale of petroleum products- High Speed Diesel & lubricants - entry tax on the scheduled goods - HELD THAT:- It is the settled legal proposition that taxing statute must be construed strictly. Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. CIT and Ors.[2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT]; The purpose of imposing the pre-deposit condition is that right of appeal may not be abused by any recalcitrant party & there may not be any difficulty in enforcing the order appealed against if ultimately it is dismissed. There must be speedy recovery of the amount of tax due to the authority.
'Entertain' means either "to deal with or admit to consideration". 'Entertain' means when it is admitted & the matter is kept under consideration for hearing i.e. for consideration on merit. State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Ors.[2000 (9) TMI 946 - SUPREME COURT].
In CIT, Bombay v. Filmistan Limited [1961 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court examined a case where appeal under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1922 was filed within limitation without meeting requirement of pre-deposit condition. However, tax was paid after the period of limitation prescribed for presenting the appeal. The provisions read that "no appeal shall lie" in view of the proviso to Section 30(1) of the Income Tax Act & it mean that appeal could not be held have been properly filed until tax was paid & any memorandum of appeal could not be presented.
In view of the above, law can be summarised that if a condition of pre-deposit is imposed, a party while filing the appeal is bound to meet the requirement of the pre-deposit condition. However, it will depend upon the language of statutory provisions & particularly the words use therein as to whether the memo of appeal can be presented/filed or instituted without meeting the pre-deposit condition.
In case "entertaining" the appeal is not permissible, the appeal can be filed, but may not be heard on merit unless the pre-deposit condition is met. The pre-deposit condition is imposed to regulate the procedure of appeal. Therefore, in such an eventuality, where there is no prohibition for filing the memorandum of appeal without meeting "the pre-deposit condition, the appeal can be heard only after meeting it.
In the instant case, as the provision of the pre-deposit condition for entertaining the appeal has been deleted prior to entertaining the appeal being a procedural matter, the amendment would apply retrospectively. The instant case is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd.[1967 (9) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT].
The Writ Petition succeeds & is allowed. The impugned notices dated 28th November, 2006 in connection with Second Appeal are quashed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of Income Tax Vs S. Dhanbal decided on 05.09.2008 and ITA No. 611/2007 titled as Rohitasava Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax decided on 20.03.2008 by different Division Benches of this court. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1090 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is no infirmity in the impugned order insofar as this common question in the two appeals is concerned. 5. It is submitted that though the aforesaid is the only question raised in ITA 915/2006 for the assessment year 1991-92. In ITA 649/2006 for the assessment year 1993-94, a further issue has been raised that the ESI and PF deducted was not deposited within time and thus deduction for the same is not available to the assessee-company. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in CIT v. Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. 2007 292 ITR 479 to contend that if such deposits have been made within the extended period of time, the deductions are admissible. Learned counsel for the appellant/Department cannot dispute that this issue is no more res integra as in the present case also the deposits have been made within the extended period of time. There is no merit in respect of this ground. 7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1089 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... seeks recognition and affiliation, it would require to abide by Clause 3.5 therein. The violations complained by the petitioner have been directed to be examined by the respondent No. 1 and the consequences shall flow therefrom. (v) The prayers made in Clauses (e) and (g) relate directly to elections to the executive body of the respondent No. 2 and failure of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to furnish information relating to the affairs of the respondent No. 2. In view of discussion hereinabove, such a grievance is required to be made and appropriate relief sought before the competent authority under the Societies Registration enactments. It shall be open to the petitioner to make such a grievance before such authority which shall consider the same in accordance with law. (vi) Prayer (f) seeking a restraint of the conduct of elections to the post of Senior Vice President prior to 28th of January, 2006 is rendered infructuous. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1088 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the terms of the policy, although the burden in respect thereof would be in the insurance company. 20. It is now well-settled in view of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act that facts admitted need not to be proved. 21. The question as to whether the appellant was holding a valid licence or not was within his knowledge. The driver was to show that he held licence in respect of the vehicle for which he had filed an application. Filing of an application and grant thereof would therefore are pre-requisite for holding a valid and effective licence. 22. As on 5-01-2001 the appellant was not duly licensed as his learner's licence expired on 22-12-2000. He filed an application for grant of licence much later. Insurance company, therefore, in our opinion was not bound to reimburse him in terms of the Contract of Insurance. 23. There is, thus, no merit in the case. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1087 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate Government nor any other authority can make an order or issue direction for de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or organization not owned, managed or controlled by the Government except after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. (3) Conclusion No. D recorded by the High Court in para 103 of the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable and is set aside. (4) As and when the State Government decides to assign 10,000 hectares of forest land to unauthorised occupants/encroachers, it shall do so only after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government and the latter shall take appropriate decision keeping in view the object of the 1980 Act and the guidelines framed for regularization of encroachments on forest land.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1086 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed.
........
|
