|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 7229 Records
-
2004 (12) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on or application for setting aside an award under Section 30 of the Act is extremely limited to the grounds mentioned therein and we do not think that grant or refusal of an adjournment by an arbitrator comes within the parameters of section 30 of the Act. At any rate the arbitrator's refusal of an adjournment sought in 1999 in an arbitration proceeding pending since 1995 cannot at all be said to be perverse keeping in mind the object of the Act as an alternate dispute resolution system aimed at speedy resolution of disputes. We think both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench have erred in setting aside the award only with a view to give an opportunity to the defaulting respondent to lead evidence which was rejected by the arbitrators by their reasoned order of 10.5.1999. For the reasons stated above we allow these appeals, set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench and restore the award of the arbitrators. Appeals allowed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 715 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion at the time of applying for the job with the Board. In the absence of any such particulars being mentioned in the show cause notice or at the trial, attributing some overt act to the respondent, we do not think the Board can infer that the respondent had a role to play in sending a fraudulent list solely on the basis of the presumption that since respondent got a job by the said proposal, said list is a fraudulent one. It was the duty of the Board to have specifically produced the material to prove that the respondent himself had the knowledge of such a fraud and he knowingly or in collusion with other officials indulged in this fraud. Since there is no such material on record, on the facts of the instant case, the Industrial Court and the High Court have come to the right conclusion that the alleged fraud has not been established by the appellants, hence, this is not a fit case in which interference is called for. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 714 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, PRINCIAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ng the parties, it shall refund this amount along with an interest of 6% (simple) from the date of investment till the date of payment, within 4 months of the date of this order, in one or more installments. The interest stipulated is in line with Section 69(5) of the Act even though this provision is not applicable to a private company. Within 15 days of this order the company should communicate to the petitioner, of its decision as to whether it proposes to allot shares or refund the application money with interest as directed above. The decision of the company will be binding on the petitioner. In view of certain claims made by the company against the petitioner, I am not giving any direction in regard to refund of ₹ 41 lacs invested by the petitioner by way of loans to the company, which is a part of the suit filed by him and he may pursue the same. 18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order as to cost. All the interim orders stand vacated.
-
2004 (12) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... had been wrongly exempted from acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek similar relief. It is rightly pointed out by the High Court that, merely because a representation was made by the Director, Town and Country Planning, that upon gift of certain land to the Gram Panchayat for widening of the passage, permission for change of user of land would be granted, such a promise is not one capable of being enforced against the State Government. The High Court has rightly pointed out that, if the appellants are so desirous, they may seek invalidation of the gifts in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the ground of failure of the Director, Town and Country Planning to fulfil his commitment. That, however, does not render the acquisition proceedings illegal. No other ground has been made out. In our view, therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment rendered by the Division Bench. We find no merit in the appeals, which are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 712 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed Accountant for opening of bank accounts in respect of non-existing firms with only intention of helping M/s. Goel Air-Shrink (I) Ltd. to defraud the Government.” 2. The issue of exports under DEPB scheme (SIC) liability to confiscate under Section 113(1)(c) and penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, is no longer res integra having been settled in favour of assessee following the decisions of the Apex Court CC (EP), Mumbai v. Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (155) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) , Ashu Exports v. CC, Chennai 2004 (65) RLT (CESTAT-Che.) 2004 (177) E.L.T. 343 (Tri.-Chennai), Kobain ECS India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai 2004 (60) RLT 112 (CESTAT-Mum.) 2003 (157) E.L.T. 662 (Tribunal), G.P. Jaiswal v. CC, Lucknow 2004 (167) E.L.T. 206 (Tri.-Del.) and no contrary decision being shown to us. In view of the same, we have to set aside the order impugned in this case and allow these appeals. 3. Ordered accordingly and appeals disposed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2004 (12) TMI 711 - SUPREME COURT
Petition challenging an award by the Labour Court - maintainability of an application seeking stay of a civil suit under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC - HELD THAT:- As can be seen from the facts, both the proceedings operated in different spheres. The subject matter of the two proceedings is entirely distinct and different. The cause of action of the two proceedings is distinct and different. The cause of action in filing the said suit is the loss suffered by the appellant on account of the shortage of drugs. On the other hand, in the said writ petition No. 24348/02, the management has challenged the award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement of the respondent
As stated, Section 10 CPC is referable to a suit instituted in a civil Court, The proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court. They are not the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction. In the circumstances, Section 10 CPC has no application to the facts of this case.
In the impugned judgment, the High Court has observed that since the writ petition filed by the appellant against the award of the Labour Court was pending in the High Court and since the High Court was superior to the Civil Court it was desirable to stay the passing of the decree by the Civil Court. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the respondent applied for stay of the trial pending in the City Civil-Court, Bangalore under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC. Since the scope of the writ petition filed by the management was entirely distinct and separate from the suit instituted by the management in the Civil Court, we are of the view, that, the High Court had erred in directing the trial Court not to proceed with the drawing up of the decree.
Thus, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.
-
2004 (12) TMI 710 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ular. The order itself had attained finality. 22. The effect of the impugned order dt. 9th/10th Dec, 2003, is to set at naught the findings of the Settlement Commission that no interest is payable. 23. A writ of mandamus is, thus, issued quashing the impugned order dt. 9th/10th Dec, 2003, and directing that the matters relating to any liability of the petitioner stand settled in terms of the order of the Settlement Commission dt. 4th Sept., 2002. The natural consequence would be that the bank guarantee, furnished would be discharged and the order dt. 27th Feb., 2001 suspending the importer-exporter code of the petitioner will not remain in force and shall stand quashed as the petitioner is held not to be liable to the respondent- Department for any amount. 24. The rule is made absolute leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CM 11102 of 2004 No further directions are called for in this application in view of disposal of the Writ Petition. Application stands disposed of.
-
2004 (12) TMI 709 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder Article 226 of the Constitution in the Government's decision regarding the location of Mandal Headquarters on the ground of breach of guidelines is not warranted. In CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN it was held that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. Similar view was taken in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA . Moreover, petitioner has not been able to show any of his rights has been violated or infringed by shifting the Village Administrative Office. This is not a fit case, in our opinion, for exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Connected WPMP No. 30045 of 2003 is closed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 708 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with Mr. Prakash Kumar ORDER No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 707 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er confidence in them. Be that as it may, since the amount was received by the claimant in 1994, therefore, levy of interest 18 does not appear to be justified. Hence, we set aside the order awarding interest 18 per annum. Similarly a levy of cost of litigation of ₹ 10,000/- also does not appear to be justified in the present case as in view of our finding above. Hence, we allow the C.A. No. 6063/1999 filed by National Insurance Company and set aside the order of the Commission. Polymat India Pvt. Ltd.. (C.A. No. 4366/99) have also filed appeal against the same order and their grievance is Commission ought to have granted entire loss assessed by Surveyors instead of 75 & interest should have been awarded from the date of loss. Since, we have examined the whole matter in detail, we are satisfied that claimant is not entitled to be compensated loss as claimed by them. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 706 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re merely an opportunity to make written representations, or comments upon announced proposals." On the basis of official notings produced by the Respondent No. 1 and the impugned order, it becomes foregone conclusion that the petitioners' representations were duly considered and reading together the official notings and the impugned order, it cannot be said that no reasons were recorded. The petitioners' right was to ask for decision and not the reasons on which the decision was based. With regard to filing of two EIA Reports and decision was based on the second Report for which no public hearing was given, we are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 5 and we do not find any infirmity which calls for any interference. 45. Subject to the observations, directions and clarifications contained hereinabove, all the three petitions are dismissed. Notices are discharged without any order as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 705 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... chimen Silk Limited (1997 CC 778) to urge that an order of investigation should be made on the basis of the allegations made in the petition. The facts of that case cannot be compared with the present ones. In that case the company was a public listed company, it had not filed balance sheets for a number of years, it had not disclosed material facts in the proceedings pending before this Board under Sections 397/398 of the Act and therefore this Board ordered investigation. In the present case, the respondents have satisfactorily explained all the allegations made in the petition. In regard to the allegations contained in the additional affidavit, since these allegations have already been raised in the appeal proceedings before Calcutta High Court, I am not considering the same. 14. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing findings on the allegations. I do not find any scope for ordering an investigation into the affairs of the company and accordingly the petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ault can be found with the approach adopted by the Tribunal. The High Court has interfered with the impugned order of the Tribunal on an erroneous assumption that any direction for payment by the tenant to the landlord of any amount at any rate above the contractual rate of rent could not have been made. We cannot countenance the view taken by the High Court. We may place on record that it has not been the case of the tenant-respondent before us, nor was it in the High Court, that the amount of ₹ 15,000/- assessed by the Rent Control Tribunal was unreasonable or grossly on the higher side. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Tribunal restored with costs incurred in the High Court and in this Court. However, the tenant-respondent is allowed six weeks' time, calculated from today, for making deposits and clearing the arrears upto the date consistent with the order of the Rent Control Tribunal.
-
2004 (12) TMI 703 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 26.8.2992 and period of 30 days as provided under Clause 23 of the agreement undisputedly also expired, despite the same dragged the petitioner to approach this court and contested the matter before the learned Single Judge and thereafter before the Division Bench, and he has incurred financial burden for no fault of his and was deprived in getting his dispute settled for two years. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has charged ₹ 15,000/- fee to provide his professional services to the appellant and the appellant has paid to him this amount. In these facts and circumstances we hereby impose a cost of ₹ 15,000/- upon the respondents which shall be paid to him within 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order in their office. 16. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. The office is directed to send forthwith a copy of this order to Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.M. Kasliwal (Retd.) for information and further action.
-
2004 (12) TMI 702 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing up. After this adjustment, if there is surplus, he would refund the same to the O.L. However, if still some amount is recoverable after the set off for balance outstanding he would be entitled to raise claim with the O.L. as an unsecured creditor; (iii) position would be same as (ii) above even if rentals etc. outstanding are for the period after the winding up. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that it is not necessary for the landlords/applicants in all these applications to remit any amount to the O.L. at the time of vacation of the premises. Consequently, I direct that in those cases where the applicants had deposited the amount in this Court at the time of taking possession, they will be entitled to seek refund thereof. In cases of those applicants where possession is not given so far for the reason that security was not refunded, it shall be given by the O.L. without insisting on such deposit. 18. With these directions, the applications stand disposed of.
-
2004 (12) TMI 701 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... annot alter the terms of the contract. 17. For the reasons stated above, this writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P.No.14013 of 2004 is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18. Before parting with the case we would like to mention that recovery of tens of thousands of crore rupees of loans of banks and financial institutions has been held up by Court orders under Article 226 proceedings which were really unwarranted. However, much sympathy a Court may have for a party, a writ Court must exercise its jurisdiction on well settled principles, and not on mere sympathy or compassion. No doubt, there may be hardship to a party, but unless violation of law is shown the Court cannot interfere. Holding up recoveries of loans by unwarranted Court orders is causing incalculable harm to our economy, since unless the loan is recovered a fresh loan cannot be granted to needy persons. The Courts must keep these considerations in mind.
-
2004 (12) TMI 700 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e petitioner has approached this Board in its capacity as a member and not in terms of any contractual right. Further, the company/respondents have advertised for the sale of membership shares held by the company in the cooperative society by which the ownership of the impugned premises would vest with the purchaser of the shares. In other words, by the proposed sale, the company, in which the petitioner holds 15 shares, would be left with no assets if the interim Order is vacated and the company disposes of the property before the petition is finally disposed of resulting in the petition becoming infrutuous. Thus, taking into consideration the balance of convenience and the fact that the main petition itself is coming up for final hearing shortly, I decline to vacate the interim Order and dismiss the application. 11. Respondents to file their replies to the main petition by 20.1.2005 and rejoinder to be filed by 1.2.2005. The petition will be heard on 11.2.2005 at 10.30 AM.
-
2004 (12) TMI 699 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rted in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 218 (Tribunal-LB) and it was held that it is for the assessee to opt for the provisions of Rule 57F(2) or 57F(4). As the issue is settled, we hold that the confirmation of demand of duty on this count is not justified. 3. A small amount of ₹ 4,81,446.59 was confirmed on the ground that inputs sent to the job worker were not received back within the prescribed period. However, there is no dispute that the goods were received back from the job worker’s factory though belatedly. There are also provisions in the Modvat Rules empowering the Assistant Commissioner to extend the period under Rule 57F(2). As admittedly the inputs worked upon were received back, there is no justification for demanding duty on the same. 4. Inasmuch as demand of duty is being set aside, penalty is also not imposable. The same is also set aside. In a nutshell, appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in Court on 31-12-2004)
-
2004 (12) TMI 698 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... this appeal. 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions, 1 notice that the ground taken by the Revenue to file the appeal is not satisfactory. Once the Tribunal has rendered the judgement, the same is binding on the authorities, unless it is stayed or reversed by the higher authority. Respectfully following the judgment cited including the Final Order Nos. 1021 to 1022/2003, dated 28.1 1.2003 rendered in the case of CCE, Tiruitelveli v. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. and Other, the impugned order is confirmed by rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue.'" We are of the considered opinion that the judgement of the Tribunal rendered in case of CCE, Tirunelveli v. Sudarsanam Spinning Mills (supra), following the ratio of other judgements, would apply to the facts of this case. Respectfully following the ratio of the aforesaid judgement, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are followed with consequential relief if any. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2004 (12) TMI 697 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal in paragraph 8 of its order considered the submissions and held that the Assessing Officer has no where recorded his satisfaction that the income noted on the seized documen s in fact belonged to the assessee. Hence, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal is dismissed.
........
|
