|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 538 Records
-
2000 (5) TMI 1082 - COMPANY LAW BOARD , CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... rovisions of sections 100 to 104 of the Act in a proceeding under section 397/398. Accordingly, noting that all the allottees are parties to the present proceedings, we direct the company to cancel the 1.5 lakhs shares issued on 18-6-1999, within 15 days of receipt of this order and refund the consideration received in respect of these shares. Consequently, the authorised capital and the paid-up capital of the company will get reduced to ₹ 40 lakhs and ₹ 30 lakhs, respectively. In view of our finding that the fifth respondent could not have been removed as a director, we also declare that he will continue as a director. We also direct the company to delete the remarks in the folios of the petitioners in the register of members, since mere entering into a sale agreement cannot vest the rights of a member to the buyer. 21. In view of our directions above the in respect of the first petition, nothing survives in the second petition and as such the same is dismissed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1081 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We do not think that we should intercede to restore status quo ante the conditions arising in clauses 6(a) and 6(b) of the Tender Booklet and bid offered much earlier by M/s. Monark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. should he accepted, for it filed a writ petition, which was allowed with direction for calling for fresh tenders. Public interest in the present case would be definitely served by reason of allowing the tender process to be completed by accepting the highest offer made by M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. subject to raising its bid to ₹ 42 crores matching with that of Ramchand Mahadeo Rao, though invalid, for ₹ 41,51,00,000 for the period of 11 months which he is willing to raise to ₹ 42 crores. We are not allowing M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. or M/s. Jai Krishan Infrastructure such an opportunity as they had made lower bids. We dispose of the appeals by upholding the order made by the High Court and by giving further directions as stated above.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1080 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... part, there is no good reason put forward as to why the omnibuses are singled out. o p /o p Even heavy goods transport vehicles are also purchased by investing heavy amount. In other words, the condition that for a period of non-use beyond three months, the owner or a person in possession or control of vehicle should satisfy the reasons beyond the control for non-use of vehicle is attached to omnibuses and not to other vehicles. If the appellants see any dlifficulty in working of their officers in the matter of checking vasion of tax. that itself is not a good ground to uphold the validity of the condition that an owner or possessor of a vehicle should satisfy as to die non-use of omnibus for the reasons beyond his control in order to claim refund of tax for a period exceeding three months. o p /o p Thus. having regard to aJI aspects, we do not find any good or valid reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. Consequently we dismiss it with costs. o p /o p
-
2000 (5) TMI 1079 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he aforesaid decision is that though the manufacturer would be entitled to utilise the accumulated credits under the rescinded notification and can also accumulate further credits on the basis of the fresh notification of the year 1989, but is not entitled to claim adjustment on the basis of both the accumulated credits simultaneously. We approve the views taken by the Karnataka High Court and we further hold that neither in the decision of the Gujarat High Court not in the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, anything contrary has been said, so far as the question of utilisation of the credit for payment of duty on the manufactured goods are concerned. In this view of the matter, the Excise Authorities have rightly dealt with the matter of utilisation of the accumulated credit in favour of the appellant-manufacturer and we see no infirmity in the same. 9. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1078 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t be sufficient to bring home the charge of conspiracy but that by itself would not authorise the court to call it a day in regard to the charge of conspiracy on the wake of the factual matrix of the situation at this stage of proceedings. Criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean harassment and in the event the prosecution of this nature is allowed to be continued, it would not be in our view a travesty of justice or any undue prejudice or even otherwise prejudicial, since ultimately in the event the charge is not proved, he would be acquitted. The Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents herein does disclose some materials for scrutiny against the appellant as such we are unable to render any assistance to the appellant herein. In that view of the matter this Appeal foils the order of the High Court as passed by the learned Single Judge cannot and ought not to be interfered with on the given set of facts as noted above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1077 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ion 115J is not available to the assessee on either of the grounds viz., that the amount in question has not been credited to the profit and loss account and that the amount even if deemed to be adjusted, is not out of the reserves. The revenue was therefore justified in not making the adjustment claimed by the assessee. 28. It may be pertinent to mention that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd. (supra), of which, one of us is a party, is on its own facts. In that case, there was no dispute regarding the credit of the amount to the profit and loss account. The correctness of the claim of the representative was also not considered in that case. 29. Taking totality of facts and circumstances of the case into account, we hold that the reduction sought by the assessee under Explanation (1) to section 115J in respect of depreciation as well as obsolescence allowance has rightly been rejected. 30. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1076 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... amount of compensation as well as the interest which has accrued thereon are liable to be included in the income for the assessment year 1991-92. He has, therefore, requested that the Tribunal be directed to refer above-mentioned questions of law to the High Court for decision. 11. After carefully considering the facts of the case and the reasons given by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Tribunal is based on the decision given by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd.’s case (supra). There is no ground whatsoever to distinguish that case from this case. It is well-established that if the decision is in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that any question of law referable to the High Court under section 256(2) of the Act arises. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this application and the same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1075 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wal of the suit as prayed for can be granted. Such an approach is clearly erroneous. It is the duty of the Court to feel satisfied that mere exist proper grounds/reasons for granting permission for withdrawal of the suit with leave to file fresh suit by the plaintiffs and in such a matter the statutory mandate s not complied by rnerely stating that great of permission will not prejudice the defendants. In case such permission is granted at appellate or second appellate stage prejudice to defendant is writ large as he loses the benefit of the decision in his favour in the lower court. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is unsustainable, Accordingly the appeal is allowed with cost. The order of the High Court dated 21.8.1998 granting permission for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh suit is set aside. The High Court will now proceed to dispose of the second appeal in accordance with law.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1074 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... acquittal. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. It appears appropriate to us that the High Court should hear and decide the appeal against acquittal on its merits. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. Granting leave to the State to file an appeal against acquittal, we direct the High Court to hear the appeal against acquittal and decide it on its own merits. The High Court shall do so uninfluenced by any of the observations made by us today. 5. The respondents shall appear before the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on 7.7.2000, who shall then release the respondents on bail, on their furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1073 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion proceeding and a conciliation proceeding. The learned judge in passing the impugned order failed to notice the apparent illegalities committed by the conciliator in drawing up the so called settlement agreement, keeping it secret from the parties and sending it to the Court without obtaining their signature on the same. The position is well settled that if the statute prescribes a procedure for doing a thing, a thing has to be done according to that procedure. Thus the order passed by the High Court confirming the settlement agreement received from the conciliator is wholly unsupportable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 6.10.1999 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil Application No. 7117 of 1999 is set aside. The settlement agreement dated 31.8.1999 filed by Justice H. Suresh before the High Court is also set aside. The High Court is directed to dispose of the Writ Petition afresh on merit in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1072 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ORDER Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1071 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... filed in which a stay order was passed vide Annexure-2 to the petition dated 15th December, 1999. Thereafter notice dated 29th March, 2000 was sent by the Addl. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Moradabad which was received at 8.30 p.m. on 30th March, 2000 in which the date 31st March, 2000 was fixed for appearance at 10.30 a.m. at Kashipur. The petitioner filed application requesting for a short adjourment so that proper opportunity could be given to him but mis was refused and the impugned order dated 31st March, 2000 was passed. In our opinion the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, since atleast a short opportunity of a few days should have been granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 2. In the circumstances we set aside the order dated 31st March, 2000, but it will be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. The petition is disposed of.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1070 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he case. We are of the opinion that there is some force in the arguments of the learned Counsel that making of addition on the basis of source of funds as well as application of funds will amount to double addition. We are of the opinion that if the earning of income is prior to the date of application of the funds, the set off will have to be given to the assessee. However, we find that the chart filed by the learned Counsel of the assessee does not give the dates of earning of income or the application of income. Moreover, certain additions based upon the source of funds or application of funds have been fully or partially deleted by us and hence on the basis of our order the Assessing Officer will have to verify whether the earning of income pertains to the period prior to the period of application of funds. Based upon this exercise, the Assessing Officer will give necessary set off to the assessee. 72. In the result, the assessee';s appeal is partly allowed as above.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1069 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (5) of Rule 63 would be adversely affected as their possession of the land in these areas would not be reflected in the record-of-rights and Annual Register. This is contrary to the provisions of both the Acts. The other amendments made in Rules 65A, 67 and Form P.5 are liable to be quashed on the self same ground. It is well recognised principle of interpretation of a statute that conferment of rule making power by an Act does not enable the rule making authority to make rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto. From the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that by amending the Rules and Form P.5, the rule making authority have exceeded the power conferred on it by the Land Reforms Act. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has rightly quashed and set aside the impugned rules and, therefore, the appeals have no merit. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1068 - CEGAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... e Tribunal has already set aside the similar type of orders by following the ratio of the earlier Tribunal's decision reported in 27 RLT 285. 3. As the principles of natural justice have not been followed in the instant case, we set aside the same and remand the matter to the Commissioner to pass de novo orders after affording the appellants an opportunity of personal hearing. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1067 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sues a circular it is bound by its own circular and it is not open to it to contend that its own circular is not binding on it. 12. However, mere is a factual controversy in the present case as stated in Paragraph 3 (i) and 3 (ii) of the counter affidavit. Hence while we lay down the law that a circular is binding on the departmental authority and they cannot take the plea that it is not binding on them, the factual controversy whether the truck in question had passed the entry check-post Drummondganj with requisite papers prior to detention by Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad should be solved by the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax (Administration), Head Quarter, Lucknow wimin a week of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. Consequential order shall be passed immediately thereafter. 13. The petition is disposed of accordingly. A certified copy of this judgment shall be given to the parties on payment of usual charges within twenty-four hours.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1066 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h the Gram Panchayat under the Act was based upon wrong assumptions. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants upon the judgment in Bhagat Ram's case is misplaced besides being without any basis. Despite our insistence, the learned counsel for the appellants could not refer to any averments in the writ petition filed in the High Court regarding the alleged violation of Article 31A of the Constitution. We are also of the opinion that the present petition though filed in a representative capacity, yet was not a bonafide action inasmuch as the appellants and their relations having accepted the position of law and earlier at times taking the benefit of lease-hold rights could not have recourse to the legal proceedings after having failed to get the lease in their favour or in favour of their relations. The delay in approaching the court also remained unexplained. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs
-
2000 (5) TMI 1065 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e is unquestionably foreclosed. Looking at the horrendous acts committed by the accused, it can doubtlessly be said that this is an extremely rare case. Nonetheless, a factor which looms large in this case is that the accused genuinely believed that a hidden treasure trove could be winched to the surface by infantile sacrifice ceremoniously performed. It is germane to note that none of the children were abducted or killed for ransom or for vengeance or for committing robbery. It was due to utter ignorance that these accused became so gullible to such superstitious thinking. Of course, such thinking was also motivated by greed for gold. Even so, we persuade ourselves to choose the normal punishment prescribed for murder as for these accused. Accordingly, while restoring the sentence passed by the trial court in respect of other counts of offences, we order that the accused shall undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1064 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ew expressed in the above quoted paragraph. Following the decision of the Single Bench of this High Court in Sarajit Coomer Mazumder v. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board and Ors. (supra) I hold that the participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness in the instant case rendered the enquiry and the entire proceedings inoperative and without jurisdiction. 8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove I do not want to deal with the other submissions made by Mr. Ghosh, advocate and I hold that the enquiry against the petitioner had been vitiated for the reasons discussed hereinabove. I am also of the view that the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner. I set aside and quash the award passed by the Tribunal. I set aside and quash the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner and I also set aside and quash the entire disciplinary proceeding. The writ petition is allowed. However, there shall not be any order as to costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1063 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 to hear and decide appeals, was a "court" within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the proceedings pending before him were civil proceedings. It is not disputed that the appellant could file an appeal before the Local Board of the Bank, which was purely a departmental appeal. In this view of the matter, the entire period of time from the date of institution of the departmental appeal as also the period from the date of institution of the appeal under Section 41(2) before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) till it was dismissed will, therefore, have to be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing the suit in question. If the entire period is excluded, the suit, it is not disputed, would be within time. It was for these reasons that we have allowed this appeal by our short order dated 28th of July, 1998 for which the reasons are recorded by us in detail.
........
|
