|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 364 Records
-
1995 (2) TMI 439 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as we have discussed earlier, dearly attract the applicability of Section 41 of the Small Causes Courts Act as both the conditions for its applicability, namely, that they are suits between licensees and licensors and they relate to recovery of possession of immovable properties situated in Greater Bombay are complied with. Consequently the conclusion is inevitable that the aforesaid suits as filed by the appellants were not cognizable by the City Civil Court, Bombay and they could be entertained only by the Small Causes Court, Bombay, and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the latter court. As a result of this discussion, both these appeals fail. The City Civil Court is directed to return the plaints in both these cases to the respective appellants for being presented to proper Court of Small Causes, Bombay, if so advised. Appeals are accordingly dismissed subject to the aforesaid direction to the City Civil Court, Bombay. No order as to costs in both these appeals.
-
1995 (2) TMI 438 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . If such an application is kept pending, only mandamus can be issued. If an order is passed and is bad, certiorari alone can be issued. But no question of release by issuing a writ of habeas corpus arises because it is not a case of delay in considering a representation under Section 11. On merits, we do not think that there is any error in the rejection of this third representation on the ground of rejection of an earlier representation and also on the ground that the Advisory Board was referred and they were of the opinion that no further action was called for. Here, it is to be noted that it is not a case of the detaining authority relying upon the opinion of the Board at the time of confirmation of detention under Section 8(f). Here we are at a later stage where a third representation is rejected for the reasons referred to above. We do not think that there is any manifest error in the order dated 7.9.1994. (41) For all the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 437 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have come into his possession in the course of assessment proceeding and which the assessee does not explain or contradict in respect of particulars given to him. The conditions enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) under section 144 of the Act relating to best judgment assessment must be fulfilled before taking recourse to the best judgment assessment. The order Annexures-A and C do not reflect such considerations although the Tribunal at one stage has observed 'In our opinion, the ITO was justified in making the addition of ₹ 50,000 which marginally increased the rate of gross profit of the assessee. There is no justification for deleting this amount of ₹ 50,000. Now going through the ITO's order, it would be evident that the essential requirements of section 144 have not at all been complied with. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the question, as referred, is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
1995 (2) TMI 436 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es of the registered agreements were prejudicial to the public interest. It need not be impressed that any finding recorded by the Commission under Section 37 and direction given in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 37 has a far reaching effect. As such every aspect of the matter is required to be examined in the light of the provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Act before an order to 'cease and desist' is passed by the Commission. 17. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order passed in the 15 enquiries by the Commission is set aside and the Commission is directed to examine the questions involved afresh on the basis of the material produced on behalf of the parties. It will be open to the Commission to require any of the parties to adduce further evidence, oral or documentary, in order to enable it to come to the conclusion one way or the other. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no orders as to cost.
-
1995 (2) TMI 435 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the negative. 28. As all the points raised by the writ petitioners are answered against them, the inevitable result is that the orders passed by the High Court in their favour by partly allowing the writ petitions will have to be quashed and set aside and their writ petitions will have to stand dismissed. In the result Civil Appeal Nos.275/94 and 276/ 94 are allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court in M.P.No. 10/93 dated 17.12.93 are quashed and set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. Similarly, appeal No. 1994/95 from SLP(C) No. 3395 of 1994 moved by, the State of Madhya Pradesh is also allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court in Misc. Petition No.7907/92 dated 17.12.93 are quashed and set aside and the said petition is also dismissed. Civil Appeal No.1995/95 arising out of SLP(C) No. 8190/94 moved by M/s. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will-be no order as to costs in all these matters.
-
1995 (2) TMI 434 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the tune of ₹ 1,10,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% from the date of the presentation of the petition to respondents 1 to 3?
Held that:- In the present case, the premium which has been paid is at the rate of ₹ 12/- per passenger and is clearly referable to the statutory liability of fifteen thousand rupees per passenger under Section 95 (2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the present case, there is no special con- tract between the appellant-company and respondent No. 4 to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. In the absence of such an express agreement, the policy covers only the statutory liability. The mere fact that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy will not help the respondents in any manner. It does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. For this purpose, a specific agreement is necessary which is absent in the present case.The appellant-company is, therefore, entitled to succeed to the extent that it has been directed to pay to respondents 1 to 3 any amount in excess of ₹ 15,000/-.
The, appeal is, therefore, allowed to this extent. The liability of the appellant and respondents 4 and 5 to pay the amount of the award was joint and several.
-
1995 (2) TMI 433 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ished for the remaining balance, we see no reason to deny this relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, we dispose of both these appeals in the following terms The order dated January 2, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 21185 and 21186 of 1994 is set aside. The order dated December 13, 1994 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is quashed. A direction is issued to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as follows If the petitioner appellant deposits a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs in 4 (four) weeks from today before the second respondent towards the tax assessed in question and furnishes a bank guarantee for the balance amount of tax the Tribunal shall hear and decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. As far as the penalty is concerned, the recovery of the same is suspended till the disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The civil miscellaneous petitions are also disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeals disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (2) TMI 432 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... could be considered as attached or auxiliary to the building or part of it, such as a pipe carrying faecal matter from the commode to the septic tank but they could not include pipes laid underground for carrying water supply. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether there is material to satisfy this test laid down by the Supreme Court. A careful perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner does not show that while treating those goods as falling under entry 102 the authorities were satisfied that the requirements of the said test are satisfied. Even before the Tribunal it was not contended that the requirements of the test laid down by the Supreme Court were satisfied and therefore the goods shall be treated as falling under entry 102. In the absence of this requirement, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Consequently we find no merit in the tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 431 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the Supreme Court. Hence, Mr. Chakraborty s argument that the Supreme Court had no opportunity to consider the legality of inclusion of freight charges because the applicant had not contested the inclusion of freight charges cannot be entertained. The valuation should, therefore, include the actual transportation cost up to the Calcutta Metropolitan Area in its entirety and not merely equalised freight, an alternative case about which has been made out by the applicant by filing a supplementary affidavit. 13.. In view of what has been stated above, the two applications should be dismissed. 14.. The applications in Cases Nos. RN-358 of 1992 and RN-108 of 1993 are accordingly dismissed without any order as to cost. Operation of this judgment and order is stayed for a period of eight weeks from this date as prayed for by the learned advocate for the appellants in the two cases. S.P. DAD GHOSH (Chairman)-I agree. S.N. MUKHERJEE (Judicial Member)-I agree. Applications dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 430 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e identity and that they are only component parts of compressor. It noted that no one in commercial circles would understand them as component parts of a refrigerator, although there was no difficulty in understanding them as component parts of compressor or electrical motor. Applying this test, it held that the said goods are not component parts of a refrigerator. We approve the approach of the Tribunal and accordingly we find no merit in these Tax Revision Cases. They are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 429 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before the respondents to reopen the matter relating to the assessment for the period in question and further the audit report is mere a change and/or second opinion. The impugned notices as contained in annexure 1 series, the orders of reassessment as contained in annexure 2 series being based solely on the audit report are completely illegal. Accordingly they are set aside. The revisional orders as contained in annexure 3 series having confirmed the illegal orders of reassessment, they are also set aside. 17.. Having decided the matter in favour of the petitioner there is no need to discuss the other points raised by the petitioner as to whether the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment or not. 18.. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders as contained in annexures 1 series, 2 series and 3 series are quashed, but without any costs. K. VENKATASWAMI, C.J.-I agree. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 428 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his Court, after referring to the above contentions, pointed out that, if the terms and conditions of the contract had stood alone, the assessee might have been entitled to succeed in excluding the freight charges on the principle of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. case 1969 24 STC 487 (SC) but that relief could not be given to the assessee in view of the scheme and provisions of the Cement Control Order and their implications. 9.. In view of the above decision, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be in violation of the provisions of law. The view taken by the Tribunal in this regard is clear and categorical. It is this that the opposite party-dealer has charged the freight and insurance charges separately and as such it shall not form part of the taxable turnover. I do not find any error in the said finding and conclusion. 10.. Accordingly, the revisions have no merit. The same are dismissed. Place copy of the judgment on each file. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 427 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ax Rules, 1959, I find it unnecessary to examine that question because very small period is left even according to the contention of the petitioner. 17.. In the circumstances, I find it fit to dispose of this petition with the directions as under (a) Demand notice (annexures P/22 to P/25 P/26 to P/29) are quashed with liberty to respondent No. 4 to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law after the expiry of 30 days from February 1, 1995, the date of service of the appellate order on the petitioner. (b) The orders of attachment of bank accounts (annexures P/32 to P/35) are also quashed because in any case the bank balance in respect of the accounts make the orders unfruitful. 18. The petitioner is granted liberty to resort to appropriate remedy against the orders of assessment in conformity with law as noted above. 19.. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands finally disposed of without any order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (2) TMI 426 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er wrong section, therefore, records were not produced before the assessing authority. Be that as it may, I have critically gone through the impugned order, annexure 8 to the writ petition. In my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the revisional authority is eminently just and proper and does not require interference of this Court under equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 27.. Since there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order, annexure 8 to the writ petition, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. I am fully satisfied that respondent No. 1 has not committed any manifest error of law in passing the impugned order, annexure 8 to the writ petition. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 425 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r addition of Rs. 5,000 was made as ad hoc addition. Considering the nature of quantum of suppressions, the Tribunal reasonably refixed the penalty at Rs. 200 under section 12(3) of the Act. Accordingly the enhancement petition was dismissed. The reasons given by the Tribunal in determining the addition towards the suppressed turnover in view of the discrepancies noticed, appear to be quite convincing. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the suppressed turnover determined and the penalty refixed by the Tribunal. In view of the abovesaid order passed in the quantum appeal as well as the enhancement petition, the question of levy of additional sales tax does not arise. Thus, inasmuch, we see no infirmity, in the order passed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, in the penalty appeal and in the enhancement petition, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 8.. In the result, the revisions are dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 424 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uch person and if the documents are found to be false or bogus, the State will take appropriate action according to law. 7.. Mr. Kothari also moved an application challenging the vires of section 22A(7) of the Act to the extent of quantum of penalty of 30 per cent being unconstitutional. He prays that the amendment application may be allowed and till then the non-petitioners may be restrained from passing final order. In my view, the application cannot be allowed at this stage when the matter has been argued at length, after completion of the pleadings. The prayer for stay cannot be granted in the given facts of the case at this premature stage. However, the petitioner will be free to challenge the vires before the Division Bench as and when occasion arises and, therefore, the amendment application is dismissed at this stage. 8.. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the non-petitioner No. 1. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 423 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act. The views expressed by us in the present decision are also in accordance with the views expressed by this Court in Bhavani Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu 1994 94 STC 120 and M. Chokkalingam v. State of Tamil Nadu 1994 94 STC 127, referred to supra. In view of the foregoing reasons, we consider that the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the department is not competent to file the enhancement petition, when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the penalty in its entirety is not correct. Therefore, we set aside that finding rendered by the Tribunal. 11.. In the result, the revision filed by the department is allowed and the issue relating to the levy of penalty raised in the enhancement petition by the department is restored to file of the Appellate Tribunal with a direction to consider and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of being heard to both parties concerned. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 422 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... cts and circumstances of each case, within which an application for restoration should be filed. From that point of view, the learned Tribunal below was entitled to decide whether the application for restoration was filed within the reasonable period. As already seen, the impugned application for restoration was filed on May 19, 1994, namely, more than three months after the dismissal of the Revision Case No. 283/88-89. It was the duty of the applicant to satisfy the learned Tribunal below that the period taken to file the application for restoration should be held to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Obviously, the learned Tribunal below was not satisfied that the period was reasonable and he has passed a very reasoned order. After considering all aspects of the matter, we do not find any reason in interfering with the impugned order dated October 25, 1994. Accordingly, the application is dismissed without any order for costs. Application dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 421 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... am accordingly of the opinion that though the basis of such construction would be equity, such construction should be preferred to the literal construction to avert injustice. In other words, I am of opinion that the applicant will not cease to be newly set up industrial unit on and from July 19, 1993, even though the grant E.C. to the applicant would be limited to the period of three years or five years, as the case may be, from October 14, 1991, the date of first sale of the product of the applicant. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL 17.. According to the opinion of the majority, the application fails and is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order for costs. 18.. After the judgment is read out Shri Sumit Chakraborty the learned advocate for the applicant prays for stay of operation of the judgment for eight weeks to which Shri J.K. Goswami, the learned State Representative has no objection. Accordingly, operation of the judgment is stayed for eight weeks. Application dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 420 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... y to the respondents to make fresh assessment under section 14(3) of the Entry Tax Act as such an opportunity, though given by the High Court in the earlier writ petition, has not been properly availed of by the respondents. Moreover, it is already on record that the duplicate copies of receipts in form V are not in the office and only some of the triplicate copies in form V are available in the office. 13.. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned order dated December 8, 1983 and the demand notice dated December 8, 1983 are quashed. In the circumstances of the case no cost is allowed. Let a copy of this judgment and order be forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal, for information and action, if any. The operation of this judgment is stayed for a period of 8 weeks from date, as prayed for by the respondent s learned advocate. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).I agree. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).I agree. Application allowed.
........
|
