Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 418 Records
-
1999 (4) TMI 640
... ... ... ... ..... the nature of the packing varies from customer to customer, being corrugated boxes of different thickness, gunny bags etc. packing is not essential and is used only for transport. His conclusion does not follow from the facts. It is difficult to accept that glass bottles are marketable without any packing whatsoever. As they are breakable, it is reasonable to conclude that packing to some extent is required. Therefore that expenditure of packing is essential for the cost of packing which is essential for the goods for marketing, is includible in the assessable value. In view of the absence of material, we are not in a position to say what this packing is, or its cost. The advocate for the respondent undertakes to produce material before the Collector within two months from the receipt of this order which will enable the Collector to come to the conclusion in this regard. The Collector shall after considering such material pass order according to law. Appeal allowed in part.
-
1999 (4) TMI 639
... ... ... ... ..... dependent valuer so that there could be no dispute regarding the price payable by the respondents to the petitioners. Article 13 of the articles of association of the company provides for determination of fair value by the auditors of the company in case of transfer of shares. We consider that the provisions of the same article should be applied in valuation of shares now also. However, we give the option to both the petitioners and the respondents, in case it is not acceptable to either of them that the auditors of the company should value the shares, to suggest a valuer agreeable to both of them so that we could appoint him to value the shares. The parties will appear before us on May 11, 1999, at 4.30 p.m. to suggest the name of an agreed valuer failing which we shall appoint one on our own. 11. We, accordingly, dispose of the petition, however, reserving the right to issue an order on appointment of a valuer and determining the price for the shares. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 638
... ... ... ... ..... ich shows that his resignation was deemed to have been accepted. 5. Mr. Luthra, on the other hand, has pointed out that in the statement of Mr. M.C. Saxena, it was stated that on receipt of intimation regarding the resignation by the applicant, he was asked to file Form No. 32 and the balance sheet etc. of the company in liquidation but it was done and, therefore, it could not be said that the applicant's resignation had been accepted. 6. In view of the fact that letter of resignation, as sent to the Registrar of Companies, was not rejected and the fact that after the receipt of the said letter no prosecution is stated to have been launched against him, presumably in terms of the aforesaid circular issued by the Department of Company Affairs, the non-furnishing of Form No. 32 by applicant No. 2 is of no consequence. 7. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and the applicant is discharged in Crl.O.2/82. Crl. O (CO)2/82 List on 24 August, 1999.
-
1999 (4) TMI 637
... ... ... ... ..... re the allotment as invalid. Thus, the subscribed share capital on the date of filing of the petition was ₹ 22,50,000. If it is so, the petitioners should be holding shares worth at least ₹ 2,25,000 on that day to maintain the petition in terms of Section 399. However, they held shares of the face value of only ₹ 1,95,650, i.e., less than 10 per cent. of the subscribed capital, and therefore, do not meet the requirements of Section 399 and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, we find that the petition is a composite petition wherein the petitioners have also invoked the provisions of Section 237 of the Act seeking investigation into the affairs of the company. Since the foundation of the petition is under Section 397/398 and as the requirements of Section 399 are not fulfilled, we dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a separate petition under Section 237 if they so desire. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 636
... ... ... ... ..... s also seen that this Act is beneficial legislation, so also the law of interpretation has to be construed in the benefit of public. In the overall legal position and the fact that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it has to be construed in the benefit of the public, we are of the view that the word 'public 'place', wherever used as a right or controlled in any manner whatsoever, would attract Section 2(24) of the Act. In view of this, as stated, the private place used with permission or without permission would amount to be a 'public place'. 17. In view of what we have discussed above, we hold that the expression 'public place' for the purpose of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will cover all places including those of private ownership where members of the public have an access whether free or controlled in any manner whatsoever. 18. The reference is answered accordingly. Post the matter before the Division Bench for orders.
-
1999 (4) TMI 635
... ... ... ... ..... site which also he has not visited. Besides this, as a result of the adoption of the domain name "RADIFF', the public are likely to associate the defendants' domain name with the plaintiffs and/or as part of the Rediffusion group. It is pertinent to note that from May 1998 to January 1999, the same web page and services were offered by the defendants on the website "INDIAN SERVICE. COM". They continue even now to have an identical web page and services on "INDIAN SERVICE COM". Apparently it is seen that the defendants have adopted the domain name RADIFF with the intention to trade on the plaintiffs' reputation. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) (i) to (iii) and (v) to (viii). 23. On the request made by Counsel for defendants, the operation of this order is stayed for a period of three weeks from today. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. 24. Motion made absolute.
-
1999 (4) TMI 634
... ... ... ... ..... lant. 40. In the absence of any satisfactory reasons given in support of the order under appeal and for the reasons stated we vacate the order under appeal and revive the order dated 30th March 1999 which will continue until the disposal of the interlocutory application. We have limited ourselves and dealt with the matter purely as if this court were dealing with the issue at the ad interim stage. Necessarily our observations both on fact and law in this judgment should not be taken as final even for the purposes of the interlocutory application and it will be open to the learned single Judge to take a contrary view in his discretion as he may think fit uninhibited by this order. M.K. Basu J. I agree. Stay prayed for and the same is refused. Let a xerox copy of this Judgment duly singed by the Assistant Registrar of this court be made available to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy thereof on payment of usual charges. 41. Appeal allowed
-
1999 (4) TMI 633
... ... ... ... ..... t it is possible to hold that the jurisdiction of such tribunal is ousted. With the aforesaid principle in mind, on examining the averments made in the plaint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the claim in question made by the plaintiff is essentially one for recovery of a debt due to it from the defendants and, therefore, it is the tribunal which has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute and not the ordinary civil court. In this view of the matter the High Court was in error to hold that the dispute in question is not entertainable by the tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. We, accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court and direct that the suit in question which stood transferred to the tribunal, constituted under the Act and was registered as Transferred Application No.163 of 1996 be disposed of by the tribunal in accordance with law. These appeals are allowed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 632
... ... ... ... ..... an Bank v. Metallurgical Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd. 98 CWN 1145 (DB) . To sum up, the failure to give reasons would, in our view, make the order vulnerable in appeal but not destroy it altogether. The same conclusion is also reached by us with regard to the failure of the court to direct the service of the order and for the same reasons. 33. As far as the facts are concerned it is clear that there was sufficient material before the learned single Judge to warrant passing of an exparte interim order. Therefore while deprecating the practice of not giving reasons in support of interlocutory orders particularly at the exparte stage, we confirm the order and dismiss the appeal with no order as as to costs. M.K. Basu, J. 34. I agree. Let a xerox copy of this Judgment duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this court be made available to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy thereof on payment of usual charges. 35. Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (4) TMI 631
... ... ... ... ..... the directorship. This meeting will be chaired by the official liquidator, Jaipur, to whom notice of the general body meeting will be sent by the managing director. The company will pay him an honorarium of ₹ 3,000. In the meanwhile, the existing board will not take any decision unless and until one of the petitioner directors is present in the board meeting. 23. As soon as the new board is constituted, the respondents will furnish full accounts of the company from 1995, onwards, and the board will get them audited. Till the new board is constituted, the bank accounts of the company will stand frozen and will become operational with the authority of the board. The board will take necessary action to recover all the dues payable by the respondents as per the lease agreement and will also ensure that all the arrears of rent for the shops belonging to the petitioners are paid without delay. 24. With the above, directions, we dispose of this petition. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 630
... ... ... ... ..... an accused in the said proceedings merely because he is a formal Director in the Company. In absence of any specific averments or ingredients in the complaint against the petitioner, the process issued against the petitioner requires to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also failed to show any ingredients in the complaint against the present petitioner and, therefore, without entering into further details, i.e. whether there is a civil dispute or not because other Criminal Misc. Applications are pending in the Court and if I observe anything in the matter, it will affect the rights of the parties and, therefore, I accept the request made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. In the result, this Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. The complaint and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.173 of 1996 filed against the petitioner before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
-
1999 (4) TMI 629
... ... ... ... ..... oner, the latter demand-ed a lump sum of ₹ 1.25 crores. Since we find that there is a large gap between the offer of the respondents and the demand of the petitioner, considering the fact that the valuation done by the respondents do not take into account all the fixed assets and also the profit-earning capacity of the company, which should also be taken into account in computing value of shares, we consider it appropriate, in exercise of our powers under section 402 of the Act, to appoint an independent valuer to value the shares so that the shares held by the petitioner could be purchased by the respondents. Accordingly, both the sides will appear before us on 23-4-1999 at 4.30 PM to suggest the name of a valuer acceptable to both the sides so that we could appoint him to value the shares of the company. With this direction, we dispose of this petition, however, reserving the right to pass further orders on appointment of valuer and deciding the price for the shares.
-
1999 (4) TMI 628
... ... ... ... ..... ncome did not accrue to beneficiaries by virtue of the transaction of the loan, but it accrued to them by virtue of subsequent transactions of their having invested the amounts. It is therefore clear that the provisions of Section 60 of said Act could not have been invoked by the revenue for assessing the income of the beneficiaries in the hands of the assessee trust. The Tribunal was therefore justified in holding that the provisions of Section 60 were not applicable to the facts of the present case. o p /o p In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court answered both the questions in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. o p /o p Following the aforesaid decision, this court in assessee's own case relating to earlier years, we answer the aforesaid two questions referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. o p /o p Reference stands accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
1999 (4) TMI 627
... ... ... ... ..... evidence and therefore even assuming that it was erroneous for me lower appellate court to say that the burden of proof lay on the first defendant to prove that the plaintiff was not the son of the Haritheertham, that would not, in our opinion, have any material bearing on the conclusion reached by the lower appellate court. The appellate court had considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides and preferred to accept the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff and it also rejected the evidence adduced on the side of the defendants. In fact, reading the judgment of the High Court, we are left with the impression that the High Court thought that it was dealing with the case if it was a first appeal. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The judgment of the lower appellate court is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 626
... ... ... ... ..... favour of some of the respondents was based on wrong application of the reservation made for "local displaced person" those allotments were contrary to law. Hence, the principle of promissory/equitable estoppel cannot be invoked to protect such illegal allotments. In the said view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgments and decrees impugned in these appeals. 14. However, we were told at the Bar that the amount deposited by some of the respondents/allotters is still with the Trust. If so, they are entitled to get back those deposit without driving them to other legal proceedings. We direct the Trust to refund all such amounts deposited pursuant to the allotments in question made in favour of such of those respondents herein, with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. 15. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are hereby allowed, setting aside the judgments and decrees impugned in these appeals. No costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 625
... ... ... ... ..... Sethi, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (4) TMI 624
... ... ... ... ..... Wilson case was, therefore, in terms disapproved of 3. When the special leave petitions out of which these appeals arise came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court, on 5-11-1984, observed that the view taken in the case of Geeta Enterprise ( 1983 (4) SCC 202 1983 SCC(Tax) 307 1983 (3) SCR 812) required reconsideration 4. The case of Geeta Enterprises ( 1983 (4) SCC 202 1983 SCC(Tax) 307 1983 (3) SCR 812) has been followed by this Court in Standard Games v. State of U.P. ( 1996 (4) SCC 467 ) In any event, we have read the judgment in the case of Geeta Enterprises ( 1983 (4) SCC 202 1983 SCC(Tax) 307 1983 (3) SCR 812) and are in agreement therewith. No reconsideration thereof is, in our view, required5. Following the judgment in the case of Geeta Enterprises ( 1983 (4) SCC 202 1983 SCC(Tax) 307 1983 (3) SCR 812) the appeals are allowed and the orders under appeal are set aside. The writ petitions upon which those orders were passed are dismissed. No order as to costs
-
1999 (4) TMI 623
... ... ... ... ..... eyond the said period of 24 hours. Of course the stand of the State of Madhya Pradesh is that appellant continues to be under detention pursuant to his arrest in the Rajasthan's case. Excuses were advanced by the respondent-State for their inability to produce the accused before the nearest magistrate within the required period. But no such excuse has been recognized by law. Hence respondent cannot validly press for further detention of the accused beyond 24 hours. That arrest has now become otiose. We therefore make it clear that as soon as the appellant executes the bond to the satisfaction of the Special Magistrate, Kota, in pursuance of the order of the High Court off Rajasthan dated 16-10-1998 (cited supra) he shall be released forthwith unless his detention is lawfully required in any other case. We make it clear that nothing stated in this judgment shall prejudice the powers of the police to arrest the appellant in accordance with law, in connection with any case.
-
1999 (4) TMI 622
... ... ... ... ..... rank to the Personnel Manager but the Labour Court brushed aside the submission on the ground that nothing was brought on record to indicate that the General Manager (Marketing) was superior in rank. We refrain ourselves from making any observation on the merit of this question as the whole matter is being remanded for deciding these questions afresh. We would only say that the Labour Court should decide all the issues together and shall not split the issues into preliminary or non-preliminary issues so that the proceedings may come to an end at the earliest. o p /o p In view of the above, the Interim Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained nor can the judgment passed by the High Court be upheld. The appeal is consequently allowed. The Interim Award passed by the Labour Court as upheld by the High Court is set aside and the Labour Court is directed to decide the whole matter afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. o p /o p
-
1999 (4) TMI 621
... ... ... ... ..... type of review proceedings. Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 reads as under The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." The same provisions by analogy usefully apply to the present proceedings. 3. Hence, even on merits the review petition is liable to fail. 4. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed both on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay as well as on merits.
........
|