|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 464 Records
-
1998 (4) TMI 561 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the material on record specially when oral hearing is envisaged and has in fact been given to the party. The importance of oral hearing cannot be nullified by saying that the authority has considered all the submissions contained in the written arguments. Oral hearing generates discussion and leads to clarification of doubt, if any, which the authority while has to decide might be having in its mind. The importance of benefit of a healthy discussion can never be over emphasised. It is a basic tenet of law by which we are governed. If what has been urged on behalf of the respondent was to be accepted, it would be as good as saying that no oral hearing is required in judicial or quasi judicial matter. 28. For all these reasons the impugned assessment order dated 11th August 1997 passed by the Joint Assessor & Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned authority for fresh assessment in accordance with law.
-
1998 (4) TMI 560 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he present case stands on a different footing; the transaction has already concluded, possession of the property is taken and the money is returned back, and the same is received without protest. Merely because the Writ Petition is pending, it cannot be said that the transaction is not concluded. 14. In view of the above said circumstances, we do not see any ground to interfere. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that, this Court has taken a view where the Writ Petition is pending and the transaction is also pending, it is not allowed to stay the order of the Appropriate Authority, merely because the transaction is concluded. He relied on the Judgement in APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS v. MASS TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS (202 ITR 741) and the Judgements in W.A. No. 791/93 and W.A. No. 788/93. The facts of those cases are quite different than the present case. Therefore, we do not see any grounds to interfere. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.
-
1998 (4) TMI 559 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... se in the gear box power transmission and other triviological function by itself will not exclude the item as a lubricating oil as it was correctly analysed by my learned Brother Member (Judicial). I also agree with him that the Revenue has not produced any evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the assessee to show that the oil is not a lubricating oil as known by the users. 33. Accordingly the view expressed by the Member (Judicial) is concurred with in classifying the item under 2710.60 and to grant benefit in terms of Notification No. 120/84-C.E., dated 11-5-1984. 34. The case file is returned to the original Bench to pass an appropriate order. Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Member (J) FINAL ORDER 35. In view of the majority opinion, the item is classifiable under heading 2710.60 and is entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 120/84-C.E. dated 11-5-1984. Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) Dated 30-4-1998 Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President Dated 19-3-1998
-
1998 (4) TMI 558 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... four arbitration suits which are governed by the old Act as held by us, and which have nothing to do with the other arbitration proceedings between the respondents and other contractors which may be pending under the new Act, to put an end to the simmering controversy about the qualification of the arbitrator, any retired Chief Justice of this Court or retired Judge of the Supreme Court or any other retired Judge of the High Court stationed at Bombay or elsewhere as found acceptable to parties can be requested to be such an arbitrator. It is of course true that earlier the respondents had expressed their inability to accede to this suggestion but in view of our present decision and in view of the fact that the controversy will be confined to only the present four proceedings, which are governed by the 1940 Act, learned counsel for the respondents agreed to once again get the response from the respondent-authorities on this suggestion. At his request, adjourned to 28-4-1998.
-
1998 (4) TMI 557 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ue may prejudice one side or the other in the proceedings that follow the show-cause notice. So, Counsel appearing on either side rightly requested us not to dwell into that aspect of the matter in the judgment. Accordingly, we refrain from expressing our views on the justifiability or otherwise of the action taken by the Bank and its office-bearers in depositing funds in the Mutual Fund. 6. In view of what has been stated above and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court, referred to earlier, we hold that the provisions, of the Act controls the affairs of the petitioners herein and actions initiated under that Act are legal and sustainable. We do not find any reason to interfere with the action taken under the Act. Petitioners, if they are so advised, have to face the proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for in these petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad interim relief is vacated.
-
1998 (4) TMI 556 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Exchange were accepted by the defendant even though they had already discharged earlier. Bills of Exchange as and when they were due and the bank had continued to pay out such large amounts of Bills of Exchange accepted by the party who is already a defaulter. It is also contended that some of the Bills of Exchange were mere secondary documents and, therefore, these matters require examination. It cannot be said that the defence raised by the appellants is totally defenceless or moonshine or illusory as noticed earlier in the course of this order. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court that appellants have absolutely no prima facie case, may not be correct. And in the circumstances, we allow appeals, set aside the order made by the Division Bench and the judge on the original side of the Bombay High Court and dismiss the Summons for Judgment, grant leave and direct unconditional leave to the defendant to defend the suit. Appeals, therefore, stand allowed accordingly.
-
1998 (4) TMI 555 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le to concur with the contrary view expressed by the learned Single Judge. However, in view of our earlier finding that the third defendant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court by waiving its right under section 86 of the Code, we hold that the third defendant is not now entitled to claim the benefit of section 86 of the Code. Present suit, in our view, is maintainable even though no consent has been obtained by the plaintiff from, the Central Government. 35. The ultimate finding of the trial Court is accordingly confirmed, though on grounds different from the ones taken by the learned Single Judge. Appeal, in the circumstances, is dismissed with costs. 36. At this stage, Mr. Presswala prays for stay of the further proceedings in the suit for a period of six weeks in order to enable his client to approach the Supreme Court. Further proceedings in the suit are accordingly stayed for a period of six weeks. 37. Expedite the issue of certified copy. 38. Appeal allowed.
-
1998 (4) TMI 554 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the detenue had himself brought about the situation in which he made himself scarce at the place of incident or of his normal residence and contrived to be taken into custody in the State only to confer jurisdiction on the High Court of that State, it may refuse to entertain the petition in its discretion, but to say that petition would not be entertained in its discretion is different from saying that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Exercising discretion to entertain or not to entertain the petition is also exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. We therefore hold that in this case, because of the service and execution of the detention order within the territories of the State of Rajasthan, this Court will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. We therefore, answer the reference accordingly. Let the record be sent to the concerned Division Bench immediately. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1998 (4) TMI 553 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ulter. We, however, do not express any opinion that where a provision like Section 3(1)(b) of the Haryana Act is not incorporated in a statute, whether the principles of natural justice would require a notice being given before any amount is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. For the reasons hereinabove as, admittedly, principles of natural justice were not complied with, it must be held that determination of the Managing Director under Section 3(1)(b) and the consequent certificate issued under Section 3(2) of the Haryana Act, both were vitiated. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as the certificate issued to respondent No. 1 and the determination by the Managing Director under Section 3(1)(b). The Managing Director will be at liberty to take proceedings afresh for recovery of the amounts due in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 552 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on to decide whether such request should be granted or not. (3) Unless a letter appointing him as Probationary Inspector (Grade - I) is issued by the company, before the expiry of the initial probationary period or the extended probationary period (as the case may be) his service shall stand automatically terminated. (4) His service is also liable to be terminated without assigning any reason during probationary period and/or extended period. Appellant has no case that respondent-company has issued any letter appointing him as "Probationary Inspector (Grade -I)" before the expiry of the initial period of 12 months nor has he a case that initial period of probation was further extended at any time. The above being the admitted position, appellant cannot get a declaration that he continues to be in service. Hence the conclusion of the High Court that the suit is liable to be dismissed does not warrant any interference. In the result, we dismiss this appeal. No costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 551 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me out or relate to its reserve fund, but from fund, which could be regarded as its stock-in-trade or circulating capital. The reason for not allowing the interest derived on investments from reserve fund to be treated as its income from banking business as stated by the apex Court in (1996) 134 CTR (SC) 92 (1996) 218 ITR 438, 445 (SC) TC S26.2715 (supra) is "That is because the investment of the reserve fund in securities is not to meet the probable eventuality to pay off the depositors should they demand the same." In this case, as already noticed, the interest earned by the assessee-bank is on investment in securities, which form part of its liquid assets. Interest so earned has, therefore, to be regarded as income earned from the business of banking and that interest is deductible under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 9. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 550 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ich individuals can rely in the conduct of their affairs, as well as provide a basis of orderly development of legal rules". (Halsubry Fourth Edn. Vol. 26 para 573). If the Tribunal decides to follow its earlier judgment the respondents in these applications can file petitions for leave to appeal if they so desire; and any other person aggrieved may also, with the leave of the Court, apply for special leave to file an appeal. In the event of the Tribunal coming to a conclusion that its earlier judgment requires reconsideration, the Tribunal can refer the question to a larger Bench. In either case the persons aggrieved can apply and intervene to put forward their point of view. o p /o p We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the order of the Tribunal in review applications and remand the Original Applications Nos. 276, 277 and 278 of 1993 for fresh consideration by the Tribunal in accordance with law. o p /o p There will, however, be no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
1998 (4) TMI 549 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... where a dealer is entitled under a statute to realise sales-tax from the purchasers, then the said amount of tax cannot be treated as a part of its turnover for the purposes of levy of sales-tax. For the said view, this Court placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales-tax, 1980 U.P.T.C. 1308. Sitting singly, I am bound by an earlier decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. As the view taken by the Tribunal in the order under revision is in conformity with the decision of this Court, no interference is called for. 3. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1998 (4) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce was caused to him due to non supply of the Inquiry Authority’s report/findings in the present case. It needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court had committed an error while setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent on the ground of prejudice on account of non furnishing of the inquiry report/findings to him. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order dated 30, 1996 passed by the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23286 of 1991 and confirm the order of dismissal dated 7th January, 1991 and 30th May, 1991 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively. The respondent to pay the cost of the appellant.
-
1998 (4) TMI 547 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t; In view of the aforesaid finding and the law being well settled the interpretation given by the aforesaid full Bench of the M.P. High Court in the case of Usha Jain Vs.Manmohan Bajaj (supra) cannot be held to be a good law. As we have recorded above, both the Executing Court and the High court have rejected the application of the applicant under Order 21, Rule 97 only on the basis of the said Full Bench decision, hence the said order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, both the orders dated 20th February, 1985 passed by the High Court in civil Revision No. 406 of 1983 and the order dated 20th April, 1983 passed by Executing Court in execution case No. 1-A/70/81 is herewith quashed. We direct the Executing Court to consider and dispose of the objections and the application of the appellants under Order 21, Rule 97 after giving opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, cost on the parties.
-
1998 (4) TMI 546 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ned under section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the National Security Act, 1980 ( Act No. 65 of 1980) in the Central Prison, Viyyoor, Thrissur." (emphasis supplied) If before taking up further investigation an opinion has already been formed regarding the guilt of the accused and, that too, at a stage when the commission of the offence itself is yet to be proved, it is obviously that the investigation can not and will not be fair and its outcome appears to be a foregone conclusion. 27. From the above facts and circumstance we are constrained to say that the issuance of the impugned notification does not comfort with the known pattern of a responsible Government bound by rule of law. this is undoubtedly a matter of concern and consternation. We say no more. 28. On the conclusions as above we allow these appeals and quash the impugned notification. We direct the Government of Kerala to pay a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) to each of the six accused - appellants as costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 545 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... enge is called for, having regard to the fact that no evidence to establish their case was led by the appellants. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs
-
1998 (4) TMI 544 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... efrom amounting to ₹ 5,06,403. In the assessment and in the computation of business profit, the expenditure specifically claimed against the receipt have been allowed and net amount of consultancy fee assessed is ₹ 1,78,528. Thus, when net amount of receipt included in the profits and gains of business is available, there is no question of going to the figure of gross amount of consultancy receipt. The case falls in category (1) discussed above. The Assessing Officer was right in deducting 90 per cent of above receipt out of business income and not the gross receipt as held by the learned CIT in the impugned order. Therefore, there was no error in the assessment order envisaged under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The learned CIT was wrong in invoking the above provision and in modifying the assessment order. The revision made by the learned CIT is hereby cancelled and the assessment order is restored. 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (4) TMI 543 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Legislature." 21. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we hold that the assessee had made bona fide claims for depreciation and investment allowance on its large number of items of plant and machinery and if depreciation on one item was not allowed at the Tribunal stage, against disallowance of both depreciation and investment allowance on all the items made by the AO, the assessee cannot be held to be liable for default under section 271(1)(c) even if it is read with Explanation 1 of that section. Since, we are cancelling the penalty on merits we do not consider it necessary to give our opinion regarding the legal implications of not specifying in the notice clearly whether the penalty was initiated for "concealment" or for "filing inaccurate particulars" of income. 22. Accordingly, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on the assessee is cancelled. 23. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1998 (4) TMI 542 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inable in law and the bank has been making unauthorised deductions from the petitioners' account and the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in this writ petition. It must accordingly be held and declared that the petitioners' loan would be deemed to have been fully satisfied on payment of the 120th monthly instalment of ₹ 18,000/- at the end of 10 years on September 15/30, 1994, plus the additional amount on account of interest tax on the outstanding dues w.e.f. 1.10.1991 till 15.9.94 The Bank is directed to recast the petitioner's account in the light of this direction and to refund the excess amount deducted by it with interest. The interest would be payable at the rate applicable to fixed deposits for a period beyond three years. The refund of the deducted amount along with interest must be credited to the petitioners' account within a month from today. 35. In the result, this application is allowed with costs quantified at ₹ 2200/-
........
|
