|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 508 Records
-
1998 (7) TMI 704 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n and this petition and find that except for some marginal changes in language or figures, the allegations in the petition are practically the same as in the earlier petition and the present petition is nothing but repetition of the earlier petition. Further, on the arguments of Shri Chowdhary that the effects of the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement committed earlier still continue, we are of the view that having waited for over seven years, even assuming that the effects are continuing even now, we cannot consider this as a ground to proceed with the petition by shutting our eyes to the plea of the respondents that there is gross delay and laches. 18. Accordingly, considering the fact that through this petition the petitioner has indulged in forum shopping and that the petition suffers gravely on account of limitation, without going through the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the allegations, we dismiss this petition. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 703 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ame cause of action, the court has expressly declined to grant the liberty. Therefore, in consistent with legal propriety, and as held in the cases cited by Shri Ganguli that when the court has refused liberty to re-agitate the same matter, we are of the view that we should not permit the petitioner to re-agitate the same in the proceedings before us and as such we are not looking into any of the allegations as contained in the petition. That being the case, the petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable. Once the petition is not maintain- able, as we have already observed, the question of looking into other allegations in subsequent applications, does not arise. Moreover, we also find that the subsequent allegations are more or less covered in the title suit No. 70 of 1994. 8. Accordingly, without elaborating the arguments of the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents on the merits of the case, we dismiss this petition as not maintainable. No order as to cost.
-
1998 (7) TMI 702 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inant recorded at the time of taking cognizance also does not reveal anything against the petitioners/accused 3 to 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the process ought not to have been set in motion as against the petitioners/accused 3 to 7. The allegations levelled against the first and second petitioners are clear. The second petition is admittedly was the M.D. and was incharge of the company. The truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against even petitioners 1 and 2 in the complaint is a different matter altogether. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings in C.C.No.897 of 1996, insofar as it relates to the petitioners accused 3 to 7 are hereby quashed. The trial Court shall proceed with the enquiry and trial only as against the petitioners/accused No.l and 2 in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this order, as this Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. 14. Criminal petition is accordingly partly allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 701 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... is on the acquisition from the open market. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to investigate the transaction and decide afresh the applicability of regulation 9 as suggested by Shri Barua. Section 15H of the act comes into operation only if a person who is required under the act or any rules or regulations made thereunder fails to make the requisite disclosure or of the mandatory public announcement. Since the acquisition of shares in the instant case itself being beyond the purview of the Takeover Regulations, section 15H has no application. In the light of the finding that the appellants were not holding any share in HFL at the relevant time and that the shares acquired were not listed on any exchange and further that the purchase was not from the open market, I hold the appellants not guilty of contravening the provisions of regulation 10 read with section 15H of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the adjudication order dated September 26, 1997 is set aside.
-
1998 (7) TMI 700 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s period was further extended till 23.3.1998 on 4.3.1998. By order dtsd.23.3.1998, the stay was further extended by three months. Even if the stay has come to an end on 23.6.1998, the period of eight years as prescribed u/s 6(1) of the KTEG Act has no expired, as the period during which the respondents were restrained from proceeding further will have to be excluded. The contention that there was no original assessment and therefore no reassessment can be made cannot be entertained in view of the judgment of the Apex court in the case of ANANDJI HARIDAS & CO., Vs. S.P.Kasture (AIR 1968 SC 565). The Contention has further been rained that the time could not be excluded as u/s 6(3) of the Act, the proceedings for assessment were not stayed. This contention has also no force because the operation of Annexure K.L.M. itself was stayed by this court restraining the respondent to frame any assessment pursuant to pre assessment notice. Accordingly this petition stands dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 699 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 2A of Section XI.” That appellate order became final. We are entirely in agreement with this approach of the Appellate Collector and we are of the opinion that as the section and Chapter Notes stand, this is the correct position and the goods of the petitioner have been rightly classified as the jute carpet falling under Item No. 5703.20 by the Appellate Authority. 10. We find that the case of the appellants is fully covered by the above mentioned decision of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court, we find that supertax nonwoven carpet’ is classifiable under Heading 5703.20 of the Tariff as floor coverings of jute’. The Notification No. 29/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 provides a concessional rate of duty for floor coverings of jute, therefore, the appellants are also entitled for the benefit of this Notification. Consequentially, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 698 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re not open to challenge under Article 254 of the Constitution on the ground of repugnance to the provisions contained in Cr.P.C. and the Arms Act. (25) The considerations governing the exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3 to 6 of he Central Act indicated above will also apply to exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3 to 6 of the State Act. (26) The directions Nos. (i) and (ii) given by the Gauhati High Court in its judgment dated March 20, 1991 cannot be sustained and must be set aside. In the result, Civil Appeals Nos. 721-24 of 1985 filed against the judgment of Delhi High Court are dismissed, Civil Appeals Nos. 2173-75 of 1991 filed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court are allowed to the extent indicated above and Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 1991 filed against the said judgment is dismissed. Writ petitions Nos. 550 of 1982, 5328 of 1980, 9229-30 of 1982 and 13644-45 of 1984 will stand disposed of in terms of this judgment. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 697 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tice of the High Court, so that these statutory authorities can work as real ombudsmen for ensuring that people's faith in the working of these public servants is not shaken. The statutory authorities are meant to cater to the need of the public at large with a view to seeing that public confidence in the working of public bodies remains intact. When such authorities consist of high judicial dignitaries it would be obvious that such authorities should be a med with appropriate powers and sanctions so that their orders and opinions do not become mere paper directions. The decisions of Lokayukta and Upa- Lokayukta, therefore, must be capable of being fully implemented. These authorities should not be reduced to mere paper tigers but must be armed with proper teeth and claws so that the efforts put in by them are not wasted and their reports are not shelved by the disciplinary authorities concerned." For the aforesaid reasons, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 696 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... be taxed as it was not applied for the purposes of the hospital. This ground has also been considered in para 21, where we have held that it cannot be said that the amounts represents income applied for non-philanthropic purposes. The ground is therefore, allowed. 60. The assessee's appeal is partly allowed. 61. In the Department's appeal the only ground relates to the exemption under s. 10(22A) and in tune with our decision for the other years, the exemption is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. C.O. No. 1141 62. The cross-objection is directed against the observations of the CIT(A) in respect of the claim for depreciation on the assets. This would arise only if the exemption under s. 10(22A) is denied and the provisions of s. 11 are held applicable. Since we have upheld the claim for exemption under s. 10(22A) this ground is dismissed as infructuous. The cross-objection is thus dismissed. 63. The appeals and the cross-objection are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (7) TMI 695 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... ances and in the light of the principles enunciated in various decisions cited supra as well as the unequivocal statement made by counsel for the first respondent, that he is ready and willing to attend the board meeting, if convened by the company, it is hereby directed that a board meeting shall be convened to fix a date for an extraordinary general meeting to transact the specified business. If no board meeting could be called, held or conducted for want of quorum or otherwise it is further directed that an extraordinary general meeting shall be held after proper notice to the shareholders to transact the business as contained in the requisition dated February 9, 1998, and that one member of the company present in person or by proxy shall be deemed to constitute a quorum at such meeting. In the circumstances, I do not propose to go into the merits of the other contentions of the parties. 16. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 694 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... lso rejected. However, so far as Shri Raheja’s arguments regarding the basis on which the assessment order Chapter XIVB can be framed is concerned, we have already agreed with him in its order that the assessment can be made only on the basis of any evidence, documents, material or information found during the search. We have, therefore, deleted all such additions which we felt were based on conjectures and surmises or estimates and presumptions not supported by any evidence, documents etc., found in the search. Thus assessee’s objections on legal grounds are partly allowed. 99. Before we part, we would like to put a word of appreciation on record regarding the assistance given to us, by both Shri Raheja, the ld. counsel for the assessee and Shri Jha, the ld. Representative for the Revenue, with their learned and analytical arguments and with their references to the relevant case law. 100. With these observations, we partly allow the appeal filed by the assessee.
-
1998 (7) TMI 693 - ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY
Whether the provisions of section 115JA of the Act would be applicable in computing the total income of a foreign company like the applicant ?
Whether in computing the profit attributable to the permanent establishment (‘‘PE’’) of the applicant which is a tax resident of Netherlands, recourse can be had to provisions of section 115JA, having regard to the provisions of the convention for avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital entered into by India with the Netherlands (‘‘the treaty’’) ?
-
1998 (7) TMI 691 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y such application under Section 11B within 60 days from the date of judgment viz., 19-12-96. Petitioners are not seeking for refund on the basis of declaration of unconstitutionality of any provision. Therefore, they have to make an application under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act for the purpose of seeking refund. However, since the time limit prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expired, these Original Petitions have to be disposed of. 6. Petitioners have filed two affidavits dated 2-2-1990 stating that the excise duty paid by the KSEB has not been passed on to the consumers of electricity or any other person. 7. Learned counsel fairly concedes that their only course is to seek an extension of time to file their refund application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek appropriate relief, if any, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Original Petitions are disposed of.
-
1998 (7) TMI 690 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he higher price was due to the difference in shape and size of the bottles used by the assessee. 6. With regard to the remaining question, reference of which is sought, namely whether the Tribunal was right in law and had valid material in deleting the addition towards purchase of complimentary articles claimed by the assessee, we do think that we have to call for a reference as an identical question has been directed to be referred by this Court in T.C.P. No. 569 of 1996 by order dated 17-8-1997, concerning this very assessee relating to earlier assessment year. 7. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to refer to the following question and submit a statement of case together with such other materials as are relevant for the purpose of answering the question "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal 2was right in law and had valid materials in deleting the addition towards purchase of complimentary articles claimed by the assessee ?"
-
1998 (7) TMI 689 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f which the copies were asked for by him may be inspected. The access to record must be assured to him. It has also been found that during the course of the preliminary enquiry, a number of witnesses were examined against the respondent in his absence, and rightly so, as the delinquents are not associated in the preliminary enquiry, and thereafter the charge sheet was drawn up. The copies of those statements, though asked for by the respondent, were not supplied to him. Since there was a failure on the part of the appellant in this regard too, the principles of natural justice were violated and the respondent was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing, particularly as the appellant failed to establish that non-supply of the copies of statements recorded during preliminary enquiry had not caused any prejudice to the respondent in defending himself. For the reasons stated above, the appeal has no merits and i;, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 688 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Heard Counsel. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 687 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... entire camera body including flash, low light warning indicator, lens etc. in the garb of shutter system. The finding in the impugned order that the imported goods were complete camera in ready to assemble condition and hence consumer goods hit by entry 172 of Appendix 2B of the import policy April-March, 1990-93 is correct. The valuation adopted is based on the price list of M/s. Tokina Co. Ltd., Hong Kong submitted by the appellant company itself before the adjudicating authority. He has adopted the lower price of US 15.8 shown in that lot. We see no justification for revising the value adopted in the impugned order. We, however, find that the fine in lieu of confiscation fixed at ₹ 3 lakhs calls for reduction as also the penalty. Hence, while upholding the confiscation, we reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation to ₹ 1 lakh and the penalty to ₹ 25,000/-. The impugned order is modified to this extent but is upheld otherwise. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nnot be said that the selection has not been made in accordance with the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit'. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal has to be allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated February 7, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court has to be set aside and the promotion of the appellant on the post of Area/Senior Manager under order dated April 8, 1993 has to be affirmed. In the result, Civil Appeal Nos. 3798 of 1996, 3809- 3810 of 1996, 3799-3803 of 1996, 3811-3812 of 1996, 3804- 3808 of 1996 and Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 177/0-17781 of 1997 and 19965-19966 of 1997 are dismissed. Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7321 of 1997 is allowed and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated February 7, 1997 in M.P. No. 1931 of 1993 is set aside and the said writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... her categories of administrative action; it cannot be interpreted to mean actions which have no nexus to any administrative action. Our attention was invited to the definition of allegation' in Section 2(2) which is couched in very wide terms but, as notices above, for purposes of Section 7(2) the scope of investigation is confined to a grievance or allegation made in respect of an action within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act, no support can be had from the definition of 'allegation'. Inasmuch as Upalokayukta initiated investigation against the respondent on the basis of an unsigned letter forwarded by the Under Secretary to the Governor of Karnataka to the Registrar, Lokayukta, the scope of investigations by the Upalokayukta under Section 7(2) has to be limited to 'action' as explained above. In this view of the matter, we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the High Court. The appeals are devoid of any merit so they are dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 996 and 4-3-1997 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 "T. N. Godavarman and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (ii) to grant such further or other order as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass in the special circumstances of this case. (iii) to award costs of this petition to the petitioners. 4. After hearing Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is obvious that the petition is misconceived and based on a total misconception. It is an obvious attempt to question the correctness of the orders of this Court through a writ petition under Article 32, which is not permissible. The objection with regard to the office report is also not tenable. Filing of such a petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and waste of the time of the Court. We do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed with costs, assessed at ₹ 10,000/-. 5. The costs shall be deposited in the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
........
|
