|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 692 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 965 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a was not urged seriously by the petitioners and rightly so, as no citizen is before this Court with a complaint that his fundamental rights guaranteed under this Article of the Constitution is violated by the State under the Act impugned. As regards the challenge to the validity of the Act on the allegations of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have laid no basis thereof. There is nothing in the Act which suggests invidious discrimination, unreasonable classification or manifest violation of equality clause. In the absence of any valid ground under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition under Article 32 itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 27. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Act impugned does not suffer from any invalidity and the challenge made by the petitioners to its constitutionality fails. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2010 (5) TMI 964 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no titled in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced. 6. In Bharat Karsondas Thakkar's case (supra) it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to an agreement of sale cannot be impleaded as party to the suit in view of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act. Indeed, the petitioner has been able to show semblance of title in the property in dispute and as such, Sumtibai's case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the case on all fours. 7. Above being the legal and factual position, the revision petition is accepted. Order under challenge is set-aside. The petitioner is allowed to be impleaded as party to the suit.
-
2010 (5) TMI 963 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pra) referred to hereinabove. What is clear is the fact that police remand can only be made during the first period of remand after arrest and production before the Magistrate, but not after the expiry of the said period. Of course, we do not agree with the submissions made by Mr. Luthra that the second application for police remand is not maintainable even if made during the first 15 days period after arrest. The said point has also been considered and decided in the above case. Within the first 15 days of arrest the Magistrate may remand the accused either to judicial custody or police custody for a given number of days, but once the period of 15 days expires, the Magistrate cannot pass orders for police remand. 11. Having regard to the facts of the case, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order directing cancellation of bail and re-arrest passed by the High Court dated 19th March, 2010, and restore that of the learned Magistrate passed on 10th October, 2008.
-
2010 (5) TMI 962 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ugh an attorney. These cases were decided, on the peculiar facts and circumstances, prevailing therein. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the petitioner from the aforesaid cases. Even otherwise, in view of the principle of law, laid down in Janata Dal's and, Simranjit Singh Mann's case (supra) decided by the Apex Court, any principle of law, to the contrary, if at all, laid down, in the cases, relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner, shall not hold the field. In this view of the matter, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-1787 of 2009 being not maintainable, through attorney stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 12. Registry is directed to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately.
-
2010 (5) TMI 961 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on before the Trial court making this averment and giving the relevant facts. Whether a Court has jurisdiction to try/entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher Court against the summoning order, the concerned person should approach the Trial Court with a suitable application for this purpose and the Trial Court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case. 6. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the Trial Court with a suitable application in this connection and, if such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the question on jurisdiction, shall decide the question of jurisdiction before further proceeding with the Trial.
-
2010 (5) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... clear on a number of occasions that the power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the regular bail application. This power is inherent in the power to grant bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, a person should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish prima facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent. 5. Hence, if the present petitioner applies for regular bail before the Court concerned, he may also file an application for interim bail alongwith the same, which application shall be decided on the same day on which it is filed, pending final disposal of the regular bail application. 6. We also make it clear that the Trial Court shall decide the bail application uninfluenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned order. 7. The special leave petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
2010 (5) TMI 959 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to exclusion of the time taken in obtaining the consent of the concerned authority while computing the period of limitation. Accordingly, the complaint in question has been filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Code and is accordingly barred by limitation and as such cognizance of the offence in question could not have been taken pursuant to the said complaint. The impugned order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, is therefore, contrary to the statutory provisions and as such cannot be sustained. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 09.11.1995 made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Borsad, below Exhibit 4 in Criminal Case No. 2239 of 1993 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Application Exhibit 4 is hereby allowed. Consequently, Criminal Case No. 2239 of 1993 is hereby quashed and set aside. RULE is made absolute accordingly. Application allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 958 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ds maintained Under Section 209(1)(d), in accordance with Clause 6 of CAS 4. Certificate indicating the cost of AA Mix 915, AA Mix 1015 and AA Cans are enclosed duly verified and signed by us. 3. It is not the case of the department as seen from the appeal memorandum that as per CAS-4, the cost of material should be the assessable value. We also note that in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta 2003 (158) ELT 15 (SC) the apex court has held that in the case of captive consumption, the cost of production means actual cost of production together with notional profit. Assessee's submission that this method is prescribed in CAS-4 and has been followed by them, is not controverted by Revenue. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue's appeal and is hence dismissed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 11.5.2010)
-
2010 (5) TMI 957 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Hence, the Judgement and Order passed by the learned Special Judge (POTA) is modified only to the extent that there shall be conviction for the offence under section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act in place of conviction for the offence under section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act and the punishment shall be 1 year imprisonment with the fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default, the simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. The other part of the Judgement and Order for conviction of the learned Special Judge (POTA) is confirmed. 67. Hence, the appeals preferred by the appellants-accused shall stand allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 68. The appeal preferred by the State for enhancement shall stand dismissed. 69. In view of the order passed in the main concerned appeals, the interim applications being Criminal Misc. Application Nos.11093/09 and 11164/09 shall stand disposed of accordingly as the rights of the parties shall stand governed as per the final order passed in the appeals.
-
2010 (5) TMI 956 - DELH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... etter and spirit of the law, a task force be constituted by the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare comprising a senior representative of the Department of PFA and the BIS, GNCTD both nominated by their respective Director Generals and a Senior Representative of the Delhi Police within a period of two weeks from today. The task force will co-ordinate amongst the various departments and constitute special crack units which will undertake surprise checks at various locations of manufactures of packaged drinking water and initiate strict action in terms of the provisions contained under the PFA as well as the BIS Act and the Rules made under those Statutes. 25. Considering that the water borne diseases are on the increase during the summer months, time is of the essence for all of the above directions. The letter and spirit of the Statutes require timely action to be taken by the GNCTD. 26. With the above clarifications and directions, the petition is disposed of.
-
2010 (5) TMI 955 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view that no case can be made out on the ground of insufficient evidence against the Appellants for conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The decision cited by Ms. Makhija in Anand Kumar's case (supra) deals with the proposition of shifting of onus of the burden of proof relating to the presumption which the Court is to draw under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and does not help the case of the State in a situation where there is no material to presume that an offence under Section 304B IPC had been committed. 19. In that view of the matter, we allow the Appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the Appellants of offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The judgment of the High Court impugned in the instant Appeal is also set aside. In the event, the Appellants are on bail, they shall be discharged from their bail bonds, and, in the event they are in custody, they should be released forthwith.
-
2010 (5) TMI 954 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... used that he ceased to be the partner of the firm from the date of August 1994 itself and therefore there was no occasion for him to borrow any money from the complainant. The Court below accepting the defence theory has held that the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. To satisfy myself about the correctness of the judgment passed by the Court below, I have scanned the evidence placed on record. I am convinced that the Court below has properly appreciated the evidence. The judgment of the Court below is in accordance with law and therefore there is no perversity in the judgment. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out that the Court below has omitted to consider any material available on record. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the Court below acquitting the respondent-accused. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 953 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... elating to CRR 297 of 2005; Case No. C 3008 of 1998 pending before the learned 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta relating to CRR 298 of 2005; Case No. C 3005 of 1998 pending before the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta relating to CRR 299 of 2005; Case No. C 3004 of 1998 pending before the learned 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta relating to CRR 300 of 2005; Case No. C 2854 of 1998 pending before the learned 16th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta relating to CRR 1253 of 2006; Case No. C 2853 of 1998 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta relating to CRR 1254 of 2006; Case No. C 2856 of 1998 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta relating to CRR 1256 of 2006 stand quashed. Accused persons are discharged. The aforesaid revisional applications are allowed being governed by this judgment. 10. The Criminal Section is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the learned Court below immediately.
-
2010 (5) TMI 952 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iscretionary and against the principle of natural justice. So, the same deserves to be strike out. We are in agreement with the view of learned Counsel for NALCO in this regard. So, the words "so, however, that such modifications shall be without prejudice to the validity of any electricity duty levied or collected under the notifications" deserve to be strike out from Section 3(ii) of the Orissa Electricity Duty Act, 1961, and, accordingly, they are struck out. The writ petitions are disposed of. Accordingly, all the interim orders of stay of realization of the amount are vacated. In view of vacation of the stay orders, the Petitioners, namely, M/s. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and M/s. National Aluminium Company Ltd., who had been directed earlier by this Court to keep the differential amount in separate accounts are directed to deposit the same (differential amount) in the State Exchequer within a period of four weeks from today.
-
2010 (5) TMI 951 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... turn, the same has not been properly considered by the lower authorities. Similarly, I am of the considered opinion that assessee in the interest of justice should be given one more opportunity to substantiate that he has received rent from the agricultural land, which falls under agricultural income u/s 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The Assessing Officer shall decide both the issues afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 21st day of May Two Thousand and Ten
-
2010 (5) TMI 950 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... facts of the case and submissions made before us. We are of the view that the submissions of the revenue stand on sounder footing in this case than any other cases as further facts have come to light upon recording the statement of the assessee. Nonetheless, it is the case of the assessee that he has not conducted any business and the whole show was put up on the directions of Shri Dev Raj. In such a circumstance, he can only be taken as a name-lender, whose income may not exceed 8% of the amount, for which entries were provided. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Kamlesh & Others is made applicable to this case also subject to the right of the revenue to argue independently in the case of PACL (I) Ltd. that the expenditure claimed by way of job work was bogus. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid remarks. 5. This order was pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2010 soon after the hearing was concluded.
-
2010 (5) TMI 949 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... in the hands of the assessee company. 10. As regards the other issues raised in this appeal, we have noticed that the CIT(A) has not really adjudicated upon the same. We, therefore, remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the specific grievances raised by the assessee on the quantification of taxability of income and other consequences. 4. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year. Respectfully following the same, we partly uphold the grievance of the assessee in the matter indicated above and remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on some of the points. The observations made in our order for the assessment year 1998-99 will apply mutatis mutundi for this assessment year as well. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 21s t day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 948 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sh Road Transport Corporation. The depreciation Schedule only provides for rate of depreciation and does not state in whose hands the rate of depreciation provided is to be allowed. It naturally follows that whoever is entitled to depreciation as owner of the vehicle, will be entitled to the appropriate rate of depreciation depending upon the nature of use of the vehicle. Since admittedly the respondent is entitled to depreciation and since the use of the vehicle by the lessee is for route operation entitling the vehicle for higher rate of depreciation, we feel the Tribunal rightly allowed the assessee's case following the decision of the Delhi High Court. Even though the decision of the Delhi High Court abovereferred does not pertain to buses put on route operation, we feel the said decision on the entitlement of the lesser for depreciation at applicable rate applies in this case also. We, therefore, uphold the orders of the Tribunal and dismiss the departmental appeals.
-
2010 (5) TMI 947 - AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cannot take undue advantage of his own omissions and commissions and contend that he was available at the usual place of residence. I crave leave of the Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely upon the relevant records pertaining to the efforts put in by the police to nab him, at the time of hearing of the petition. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner in this para is not tenable at law.” Thus, on perusal of the affidavit in reply, more particularly, para-7 thereof, it becomes clear that the petitioner was absconding and evading arrest and avoiding due process of law despite strenuous efforts were made by the police to nab him and, therefore, such person cannot be entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition does not call for interference by this Court and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
-
2010 (5) TMI 946 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... eeks from today, he may apply to the Tribunal for recall of its order dated 31st January, 2008, whereby the appeal was dismissed. If Receipt for deposit in terms of this order is produced before the Tribunal, petitioner’s appeal shall be restored and disposed of in accordance with law.
........
|
