|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 515 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 1021 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Suspension of legal proceedings, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... I am of the opinion that no fraud has been pleaded and no case has been made out in this petition. Further, the bank guarantee is unconditional in nature. It further appears that the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Turnkey International Ltd. (supra), has specifically held that if there is no detail of any fraud or any reference to special equity have been made, the court has no jurisdiction to interfere in respect of enforcement of bank guarantee. I do not have any hesitation to accept such contention of the respondent and I am of the opinion that the court should not interfere or pass any injunction restraining the bank from giving effect to the bank guarantee, in any manner whatsoever save and except if there is any fraud or special equity being pleaded in favour of the petitioner. In my opinion no case has been made out by the petitioner in this case and as such in my opinion this application must fail and is hereby dismissed however, no order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1020 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dishonour of cheque ... ... ... ... ..... ed to punish the parties for the mistake committed by them or their counsel. Considering the circumstances, there is no reason why the document sought to be produced to be marked by recalling PW-1 should not have been permitted to be filed. It is apparent that when that document is sought to be admitted in evidence, it shall be open to the accused to question any infirmities relating to that document by giving an opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 with reference to that document. Considering these circumstances and to subserve the ends of justice, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned 5th Metropolitan Magistrate, Vajayawada, in Crl. M.P. No. 453 of 2000 in C.C. No. 490 of 1999, dated 10-2-2000, is quashed. The application of the complainant for recalling PW-1 for the purpose of marking the resolution of the board of directors of the complainant rsquo s company dated 27-6-1997, shall be deemed to have been allowed. 6. This petition is accordingly allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1017 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Application for winding up ... ... ... ... ..... dated 21-11-1995, the condition contained in clause 7.3 of the contract is deemed to be waived. Learned counsel also relied on a letter dated 29-12-1997, to submit that in any event the liability has been admitted by the company. A perusal of this letter shows that the company had written to the petitioner referring to the earlier discussions also and stated that the delay in release of your payment is solely due to non-release of the corresponding payments from Essar Projects Ltd. There-after a suggestion is made requesting the petitioner to accept the proposal of accepting the steel materials of equivalent value in lieu of the payment. This proposal, however was rejected by the petitioner. In view of the above also, I do not find much substance in the submissions made by Mr. Kadam. Even if the petition cannot be maintained on the basis of the reconciliation statement, the liability under any circumstances is admitted. 4. In view of the above, this application is dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1016 - UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... General Rules, 1981. Thus, the National Commission allowed interest on the 2nd account also even if it was opened in contravention of the rules. 9. It was further held that the rule was made only for administrative convenience of the department and was not to bar the payment of the interest of an account opened by a depositor in ignorance of the rule. 10. At the time of purchase of National Savings Certificate it was the duty of the issuing Post Office to see that the NSCs are not issued in the name of HUF but according to rule 6. Thus, the complainant cannot be blamed or penalised for no fault of his. The fault lies with the issuing Post Office. 11. Thus, we find that the order passed by the learned District Forum concerned was perfectly correct on the basis of facts on record and require no interference. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum is upheld. No order as to the cost.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1013 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... conomy haywire. Bad debts cannot be written off so easily. Otherwise, such debt will contribute to the deficit financing of a planned economy. Innocent persons, who have nothing to do with these bad debts, as a nation will be paying taxes, direct or indirect, to make up for this deficit. 10. The reason the petitioner would not file an appeal under the Act is that it requires the deposit of 75 per cent of the amount which is due, which the petitioners say has yet to be determined by a final order, which if not done the appeal is not maintainable. The petitioners perhaps do not appreciate that this much tolerance has been provided by the Legislature to ensure deposit of three quarters of the amount which is undisputed. The petitioners, clearly, are evading the deposit of 75 per cent of the amount which the petitioners know is due but are avoiding to deposit, as stipulated under the Act. 11. The Court is not inclined to interfere in this appeal and, accordingly, it is dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 992 - SUPREME COURT
Ex parte assessment - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Passage quoted from the Tribunal's order shows that the Tribunal was of the view that once the order is quashed by the Assistant Commissioner, he could not in law remand the case for a decision afresh. As has been noted, before the Assistant Commissioner the counsel for the respondent had contended that the ex parte order should have been set aside because no notice had been received. When principles of natural justice are stated to have been violated it is open to the appellate authority, in appropriate cases, to set aside the order and require the assessing officer to decide the cases de novo. This is precisely what was directed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, in our opinion, was clearly in error in taking a contrary view.
-
2000 (3) TMI 987 - SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction of High court - Held that:- Appeal allowed. On the plain language of the section and on examining the impugned notice, we are not in a position to come to the conclusion that either the revisional authority lacked jurisdiction in issuing the notice in question nor can it be said that the necessary ingredients for exercising that power, as conferred by the statute have not been specified. In this view of the matter, no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the notice issued by the revisional authority
-
2000 (3) TMI 981 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Incentive schemes - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... from their customers and that it was a case of unjust enrichment. The incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyers. 3. emsp The Following questions of law are referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court - ldquo (1) emsp Whether introduction of Section 11D would invalidate w.e.f. 20-9-99 the enforcement of Notification Nos. 130/83-C.E. and 131/83-C.E. though continued up to 30-9-94. OR It would mean to continue the incentive scheme in spite of provision of Section 11D effective from 20-9-91. (2) emsp Whether the provisions of Section 11D based on the principle of unjust enrichment are also applicable to the incentive schemes of the Govt. of India which allows the appellant to retain the differential amount. rdquo 4. emsp A copy of the order in reference filed in the case of M/s. Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills and Saraswati Kisan Sahakari Chinni Mills referred to above is enclosed. 5. emsp The Hon rsquo ble High Court is requested to consider the matter and pass suitable orders.
-
2000 (3) TMI 980 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Export - Availment of Modvat credit in contravention of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. - Show cause notice - Receipt - Limitation
-
2000 (3) TMI 975 - SUPREME COURT
Whether damaged wheat purchased by the original respondent-dealer which is subjected to certain process before being sold is "cattle fodder" for the purpose of the notification dated June 5, 1985?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. What is exempted under the notification of June 5, 1985 is cattle fodder. In generic sense the expression "cattle fodder" is inclusive of everything that is fed to cattle including damaged wheat. In the present case there is no such exclusion of the damaged wheat that is processed and used as feed for the cattle. If that is so there is any justification to interfere with the view taken by the High Court.
-
2000 (3) TMI 961 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Act 25 of 1988 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature which came into force on September 6, 1988 having retrospective effect from July 8, 1983
Whether the levy with retrospective effect from July 8, 1983 was reasonable or not?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The High Court proceeded to notice that the holder of a licence in form FL 15 is permitted to sell liquor in quantities of not less than nine litres in sealed or capsuled bottles at any time and in any single transaction to licensees holding the licences in form FL 24, i.e., the (retail licence), FL 17, i.e. (bar licence), etc., and is not permitted to carry on retail sale or allow consumption of liquor in the licensed premises. Licence holder in form FL 24 is permitted to sell liquor obtained only from the wholesale licensees. On the facts stated, the view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable.
-
2000 (3) TMI 953 - SUPREME COURT
Review v/s rectification - Held that:- Appeal allowed. It is well-known that the scope of rectification is different from the scope of review though sometimes they may overlap.
In the present case, if the interpretation adopted by the High Court is to be accepted then the provision for review becomes totally redundant or otiose and there will be no difference between the power of review and power of rectification. As stated earlier, the scheme of the Amendment Act is that an application will have to be made to an authority within the specified date for review of the assessment order or such other order, as the case may be, for varying the same to bring it in terms with the Amendment Act while the period of making the order pursuant to rectification is coalesced with section 39 of the Amendment Act imposing certain limitations of time. Those limitations cannot be read into sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Amendment Act.
-
2000 (3) TMI 949 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of section 12-A of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 and rule 31-A of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules questioned
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Following the decision in Steel Authority of India case [2000 (2) TMI 729 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] set aside the order made by the High Court by allowing the writ petition and quashing the aforesaid provisions as being beyond the purview of the Himachal Pradesh State Legislature
-
2000 (3) TMI 943 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding-up - Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... already attached should be mentioned either in the advertisement as per the order, dated 7-7-1999 of this Court or the same may be mentioned in the tender forms. (D)As regards fixation of upset price the Sale Committee shall consider the order, dated 7-7-1999 of this Court as well as valuation report and shall consider the contention raised by Mr. Puj in this behalf. (E)The Official Liquidator shall consider two new facts mentioned by Mr. Puj that out of land in question about 32,890 sq. mtrs of land is vested in the Government under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and to that extent whether the area is still reduced or remains same and also the notice of the Municipal Corporation to recover Rs. 3.5 crores by way of property tax against the Mill company in liquidation. This fact is mentioned with a view to see that there may not be any future litigation in this behalf. This application stands disposed of subject to aforesaid directions. No costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 942 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Name of Company ... ... ... ... ..... er who was the owner of registered trade mark lsquo Parag rsquo . 9. The Registrar of the Companies has registered the respondent No. 3 on 13-5-1998 in violation of the provisions of section 20 of the Companies Act, as clarified by the aforesaid Circular. 10. In the circumstances this application under section 10 of the Act read with rule 9 is allowed. The Registrar of the Companies, respondent No. 1 is directed to take steps for cancellation of registration of respondent No. 3 within one month from the date on which certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1. 11. It is clarified that before cancelling the registration, the Registrar of Companies will permit the change of name of respondent No. 3 if the respondent No. 3 applies for the same in accordance with law before the Registrar of Companies within 15 days from today provided the new name as suggested is not violative of the provisions of section 20 or any other law, for the time being in force.
-
2000 (3) TMI 941 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Shares - Allotment of shares and debentures to be dealt in stock exchange ... ... ... ... ..... view that the offence under section 73(2B) is a continuing offence within the meaning of section 472 of the Code, according to which, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues, and, therefore, the period of limitation as prescribed by section 468 of the Code does not have any application. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 14. The Trial Court shall now proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this judgment on the merits of the case. 15. Before parting with the case, I must record my deep appreciation of the assistance rendered by Mr. Sachin Dutta, a young Advocate, who, appearing for his senior, argued the matter on behalf of the Registrar of Companies. His preparation and presentation of the case was impressive.
-
2000 (3) TMI 940 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Reference to Board ... ... ... ... ..... d by the arguments and I am afraid that it is not open for this court to go into the question of sickness or otherwise of the petitioner-company. Needless to say that this question has to be decided by the Board under the provisions of the SICA. This Court has to see only whether the action of the respondent-corporation was hit by section 22. From what is said above, it is clear that the action of respondent-corporation was contrary to the mandatory provision of section 29 and the same is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, this petition, thus, succeeds and is allowed. The notice Annexure P-5 as also the action of taking over taken by the respondent-corporation under section 29 quashed. The respondent-Corporation is directed to hand over the possession of the unit to the petitioner. The respondent-corporation shall, however, be free to approach the BIFR for such action as it may deem fit in the matter. 8. There shall be no order as to the costs of this petition.
-
2000 (3) TMI 939 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Offence by company - Dishonour of cheque ... ... ... ... ..... eating the words used in section 141 without ascertaining the facts is a serious matter which has to be deprecated. However, it is a question of fact which necessarily has to be decided during the trial. 9. In a petition under section 482, the matters cannot be decided on the basis of probabilities. When the complainant has made an assertion, it must be presumed that such an assertion has been made with full responsibility and if such an assertion is proved false, the complainant must be prepared to face the consequences. But, as it is not permissible to go into the disputed questions of fact in a petition under section 482, I have no alternative except to dismiss this petition at this stage and the petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. Considering the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the personal attendance of the petitioner accused No. 5 shall stand dispensed with during the trial and he will be permitted to be represented by his advocate. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 936 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in view of the relevant clause in the contract between the parties the Court at Bombay alone had jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Courts at Madras where the suit was instituted was barred?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Whether Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore has jurisdiction in the matter or not is still pending with him which proceedings were filed earlier in time than the execution application by the appellant in the District Court at Raichur. The award had not attained finality. In these circumstances the Principal District Judge, Raichur should not have entertained the application for execution and ordered attachment of movable properties of the respondents. The High Court referred to the concession by both the parties that all the applications under the Act had to be treated as original suits and if the Court finds that it had no jurisdiction to entertain, it cannot dismiss the suit but has to return the same for the presentation to the proper Court. Whatever may be the concession of the parties in the circumstances of the present case Principal District Judge, Raichur should have stayed his hands and should not have entertained the execution application by the appellant. High Court took a correct view of the matter and rightly set aside the impugned orders.
-
2000 (3) TMI 934 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up - Avoidance of certain attachments, executions etc. ... ... ... ... ..... regard. 25. For the same reasons assigned in deciding the issue with reference to the workmen rsquo s dues, I am not inclined to set aside the sale made in favour of the third respondent, but direct the second respondent to be bound by the same direction as was given in the case of the lsquo workmen rsquo s dues rsquo . 26. Having regard to the general importance of the issue as such matters are likely to come up frequently, more particularly, in view of the law declared by the Division Bench in A.P.S. Financial Corpn rsquo s case (supra) it is declared that the State Financial Corporation or any other body which has a right similar to the right conferred on the State Financial Corporation under section 29 of the SFC Act shall not bring to sale the assets of any debtor industrial concern without the leave of this Court once the winding up proceedings are initiated under the Companies Act with respect to such an industrial concern. 26. This petition is disposed of accordingly.
............
|
