|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1233 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1124 - CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... een filed on 17.09.2010. The applicant is a public sector undertaking. They did not produce clearance from the Committee on Disputes nor they have produced any evidence that their application for clearance from the COD was pending prior to 17.02.2011. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Stay petition is also disposed of. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1123 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d that the proceeding under the GAFTA Rules would be oppressive or vexatious. The ground to resist the said arbitration is that it involves prohibitive costs. The appellant was not compelled to execute the said agreement. The appellant precisely knew at the time of execution of the contract that in the event of any dispute arising out of the said contract, it would be governed by the GAFTA Arbitration Rules, 125. In absence of any demonstrable injustice or harassment being caused by reason of initiation of the arbitral proceedings or participation in such proceeding and having regard to the fact that the agreement is not in dispute, in our view, the plaintiff is not entitled to an order of injunction. The learned judge, in our view, was justified in vacating the interim order and dismissing the inter locutory application filed by the plaintiff. 74. The appeal fails, the cross-objection is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. J.N. Patel, C.J. I agree.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1122 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ,Adv O R D E R Office report states that the cost of ₹ 2,000/- has not been deposited by the learned counsel for the appellant to the Supreme Court Employees Mutual Fund in spite of sufficient time granted. The civil appeal is dismissed on default.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1121 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... decisions cited at the Bar, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for granting any of the interim reliefs prayed for by the petitioners. Hence, prayer for interim stay against implementation of the impugned statutory order dated 19 July 2012 issued by the Food Safety Commissioner, Maharashtra State in public interest in exercise of the powers conferred by section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is rejected. 61. All the prayers for interim reliefs are, therefore, rejected. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners pray for a direction to the respondents not to destroy the goods seized, for a period of 12 weeks in order to have further recourse in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondents oppose the prayer and submit that the petitioners are bringing more consignments of gutka and pan masala from other States in the State of Maharashtra. We see no justification to grant the prayer. The prayer is, therefore, rejected.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1120 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... is against the revenue, therefore consequently, the same issue in this appeal has to be allowed. 92. The order of the revenue authorities are therefore reversed and the AO is directed to accept the computation as made by the assessee. 93. The ground is allowed. 94. Ground no. 9 is not pressed, hence dismissed. 95. Ground no. 10 is on account of levy of interests u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D. 96. The CIT (A) has held that the exigibility of interest are consequential in nature, and he has directed the AO to charge interest as per law, after verification. 97. The exigibility of interests can only be verified on arriving at the conclusion and final assessment of assessed income. We, therefore, endorse the direction of the CIT (A) and direct the AO to charge interest after verification. 98. The ground is thus allowed. 99. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are thus partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e true purport of the negative covenant can be decided by the Arbitrator. 52. Therefore, we find that the petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience is in their favour. The submissions of the appellants that the petitioners do not deserve any equitable relief and that there was no arbitration clause between the Minority Shareholders interse is without any substance. The learned single Judge has considered all the aspects of the case and has found that the Arbitration Petition requires to be made absolute. There is no reason to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. In view of our finding recorded above, we will also have to allow the arbitration applications filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of Arbitrator. Arbitration Application Nos.219 and 220 of 2012 are accordingly allowed, with name of the Arbitrator indicated in a separate order passed in these applications.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1118 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Application of the petitioners for selling the mortgaged property under Section 13 (13) of SARFAESI Act - No writ would lie against a private Bank. However, where the Bank is a Scheduled Bank under Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and is governed by the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it shall be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court where the Scheduled Bank takes recourse to the provisions of SARFAESI Act.
In the present facts and circumstances after condoning the delay in depositing the amount, while allowing the writ petition, it is directed that in case, the petitioners deposit another sum of ₹ 50 lakhs in terms of the statement made by their counsel on 25.7.2012 within two months of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the OTS shall be implemented. It is further directed that the drafts deposited in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 10.2.2012 shall be returned to the petitioners, who after getting them revalidated, shall deposit the same with the bank within the aforesaid period for getting the OTS implemented.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1117 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... C) No. 4718 of 2004 and connected cases which shows that the issue involved in this case is covered by the said judgment. Accordingly, it is ordered that the directions in the aforesaid judgment shall govern this case also. This writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1116 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... tructions not to press the petition. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1115 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... out for our interference. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1114 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Violation of SEBI provisions - deficiencies with regard to manipulation of records and in the functioning of the appellant - investigation - Held that:- The purpose of carrying out inspection is not punitive and the object is to make the intermediary comply with the procedural requirements in regard to the maintenance of records. We have also observed that every minor discrepancy/irregularity found during the course of inspection is not culpable and the object of the inspection could well be achieved by pointing out the irregularities/deficiencies to the intermediary at the time of inspection and making it compliant. As per the observations made by the adjudicating officer himself, the violations committed by the appellant are mostly technical in nature; some of them are solitary instances and for others the appellant has mostly taken/initiated corrective measures. In view of this, we are of the view that the adjudicating officer was not justified in taking punitive action.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1113 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Unexplained cash credit under Section 68 - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- There cannot be any doubt about the transaction as has been observed by the Assessing Officer. The transactions were as per norms under controlled by the Securities Transaction Tax, brokerage service tax and cess, which were already paid. They were complied with. All the transactions were through bank. There is no iota of evidence over the above transactions as it were through d-mat format. - Decided against revenue
-
2012 (9) TMI 1112 - SUPREME COURT
Power pf High court - power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R - Held that:- The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
Decisions of this Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another [2003 (3) TMI 721 - SUPREME COURT], - Nikhil Merchant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. [2008 (8) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] And Manoj Sharma Versus State and Ors. [2008 (10) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1111 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... very issue has been elaborately considered by this Court in B.N. Agarwalla (supra) in the light of the provisions of Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Eventually this Court took the view that in a situation where the award passed by the arbitrator granting interest from the date of the award till the date of payment is not modified by the Court “.....the effect would be as if the Court itself had granted interest from the date of the decree till the date of payment...” In view of the above, the grant of interest on the amount of ₹ 10,17,461/-from the date of the award till the date of the decree or date of payment, whichever is earlier, is upheld. In the facts of the case we are of the view that the rate of interest should be 12 per annum as determined in the arbitration proceeding between the parties. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions we allow this appeal in part and modify the order of the High Court dated 20th July, 2006 as indicated above.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1110 - SUPREME COURT
Primary School - Advertisement inviting application for the posts of an Assistant Teacher - Appointment was in contravention of the statutory provisions Bombay Primary Education (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act) - Termination of Service - deprived of legitimate dues - Education and particularly that of elementary/basic education has to be qualitative and for that the trained teachers are required. The Legislature in its wisdom after consultation with the expert body fixes the eligibility for a particular discipline taught in a school. Thus, the eligibility so fixed require very strict compliance and any appointment made in contravention thereof must be held to be void. However, the Division Bench of the High Court has given full details of the teachers who had been appointed alongwith the respondent No.1 in pursuance of the same advertisement and possessing the same qualification of B.Sc.;B.Ed./B.A.;B.Ed.
A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum, what to talk of a Writ Court, as explained by the legal maxim ‘allegans suam turpitudinem non est audiendus'. If a party has committed a wrong, he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own wrong.
HELD THAT:- Apex court do not warrant review of the orders passed by the High Court as well as by the Tribunal. Appellant has insisted that this Court should not permit an illegality to perpetrate as the respondent No.1 had been appointed illegally and he did not possess the eligibility for the post. The Primary School children have to be taught by qualified persons and this Court has consistently held that B.Sc.; B.Ed./B.A.;B.Ed. is not equivalent to PTC which is the required qualification in clause (6) of Schedule F attached to the Act. the instant case could be decided in the light of the aforesaid backdrop. It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not set aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an eventuality the illegality would perpetuate and it would put a premium to the undeserving party/person. Thus, it is evident that the appellant has acted with malice alongwith respondent and held that it was not merely a case of discrimination rather it is a clear case of victimisation of respondent No.1 by School Management for raising his voice against exploitation.
The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1109 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... umar Kapoor (2011) 140 TTJ 249 and a copy of the same has been placed on record, where it has been held that reassessment on the basis of incriminating material found in search of third party and the provisions of section 153C are applicable which exclude the application of section 147 & 148. Hence, notice issue u/s 148 and proceedings u/s 147 are illegal and void ab initio. The AO having not followed the procedure u/s 153C, reassessment order was rightly quashed by the ld. CIT(A). On the identical facts, in the present case, the AO had issued notice u/s 148 and therefore, following the said decision of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of I.T.O. vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor (supra), the reassessment made by the AO is directed to be quashed. Thus, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.229(Asr)/2012 is dismissed and C.O. No.23(Asr)/2012 of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1108 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
GML Act [Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011] is ultra vires the Constitution of India for legislative incompetence of the State Legislature only to the extent it seeks to have control over the NBFCs registered under the RBI Act in the matter of carrying on their business under Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act.
The State Respondent is restrained from applying the provisions of the GML Act against the petitioners while carrying on their activities governed under Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1107 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mitted that the amount of ₹ 1,47,49.458.70/- had been paid way back in December, 1997, whereas the rate analysis, which is the basis of Claim No. 2, had been prepared and finalised by the Respondent on 25.10.2001 and no payment had been made thereafter. The raising of such entirely new grounds, obviously, cannot be permitted at this stage. 56. The said plea is otherwise also unsustainable as, before the arbitrator (at the time of the order of modification) it was pleaded that the said amount had not been paid. However, the petitioner in the present proceedings admits to have received the same - and that too, way back in December 1997. The petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time and take frivolous stands, just to somehow defeat the claim of the respondent. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 57. Accordingly, the present objection petition is dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 30,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1106 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rom the relevant record and decide the same afresh on such verification in the light of guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in paragraph No. 31 of the judgment as extracted above.” Therefore, Ground No.1 of the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the manner aforesaid. Consequently, ground No.1 of cross objection is allowed and Ground No.2 & 5 (incorrectly numbered) are allowed for statical purposes in the manner aforesaid. 10. Apropos Ground No.2 of the revenue’s appeal it has already been mentioned that assessee did not press this ground of the revenue, therefore, this ground of the revenue regarding deleting of ₹ 90,020/- under section 14A is allowed and Ground No.3 of assessee’s cross objection is dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on the 5th day of September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1105 - ITAT PUNE
Agricultural income qualifying for exemption under section 10(1) - Held that:- The authorities belong indeed erred in law and on facts of this case in holding that the impugned income is not agricultural income. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to treat the said income as agricultural income under section 2 (1A)(b)(i) of the Act. As a corollary to this direction, the Assessing Officer shall also exclude the said income from the total income under section 10(1) of the Act.
............
|
