Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 555 Records
-
2001 (9) TMI 1127
... ... ... ... ..... laim for damages is concerned, it is unnecessary for us to decide the same inasmuch as it would be appropriate for the parties to work out their respective rights by making an appropriate claim in a civil suit to be filed by each one of them. We have refused the relief of restitution by way of extension of lease period without examining the question as to whether there is breach of contract as a consequence of which the party aggrieved is entitled to damages. That aspect is left open to be considered or be dealt with in the civil suit irrespective of and uninfluenced by the observations or findings of the High Court on this aspect. If such a civil suit is filed, the cause of action should be reckoned only from the date of this order when we finally pronounced upon the rights of the parties, which protection will adequately take care of the interests of the writ petitioners. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the second set of appeals shall stand partly allowed. No costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1126
... ... ... ... ..... d senior counsel for the appellant, which, in our view, even otherwise is the correct position of law, that the challenge of the appellant with reference to the Regulation in question and claim of the AICTE that the appellant-university should seek and obtain prior approval of the AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or programme in technical education does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by the AICTE for the purpose of ensuring co-ordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards. For all the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and consequently set aside the judgment under challenge by dismissing the writ petition filed in the High Court. Having regard to the position of law declared by us, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in M. Sambasiva Raos case (supra) cannot also be considered to lay down the correct position of law. No costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1125
... ... ... ... ..... e right and interest of those shares in favour of the petitioner who happens to be the second son of late Enamul Haque by virtue of and pursuant to the last desire of late Enamul Haque as embodied in the will which does not require any probate or succession certificiate as per Mohammedan Law. 15. We are conviced on the basis of materials on record that the petitioenr is the heir and legal representative of late Enamul Haque, and has a valid title to those shares standing in his father's name, by operation of law. 16. We, therefore, order that the respondent company shall register transmission of 697 shares standing in the name of late Enamul Haque to the name of Khurshid Alam, (the petitioner herein) within 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the register of members of a company rectified accordingly. 17. With the above directions, the petitioner as well as the pending application stand disposed of. 18. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1124
... ... ... ... ..... dealt with hereinabove, also be raised and heard in an election petition where it is necessary to decide the election dispute. The view of the law, stated by the learned designated Election Judge of the High Court of Allahabad cannot be sustained. To say the least, the proposition has been very widely stated in the impugned order of High Court. However, in spite of answering these questions in favour of the appellants yet the election petitions filed by them cannot be directed to be heard and tried on merits as the bald and vague averments made in the election petitions do not satisfy the requirement of pleading material facts within the meaning of Section 82(1)(a) of RPA 1951 read with the requirements of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The decision of the High Court dismissing the two election petitions at the preliminary stage, is sustained though for reasons somewhat different from those assigned by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed but without any order as to the costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1123
... ... ... ... ..... d, unless the possession of the immovable property is specifically prayed for. In the instant case the suit is for specific performance of agreement for sale of the suit property wherein relief of delivery of the suit property has not been specifically claimed as such it cannot be treated as a suit for land. We cannot also accept the contention of Mr. Chitale that the suit is for acquisition of title to the land and is a suit for land. In its true sense a suit simpliciter for specific performance of contract for sale of land is a suit for enforcement of terms of contract. The title to the land as such is not the subject-matter of the suit. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court under challenge. The appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without costs. Before parting with the case we record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. A.S. Bhasme, the learned amicus curiae.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1122
... ... ... ... ..... ments under different sub-sections of Section 8, has already been upheld by this Court in the case of Raghbir Singh vs. Surjit Singh, 1994 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 162. But having regard to the mass scale corruption which has corroded the core of elective democracy, it is high time for the Parliament to consider the question of bringing the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as a disqualification under Section 8(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, so that a person on being convicted of an offence, punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, could be disqualified for being chosen, as a member or being continuing as a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Parliament. I hope and trust, our representatives in the Parliament will bestow due thought over this issue. These Writ Petitions, Special Leave Petition/Civil Appeal and Transferred case stand disposed of in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of Brother Bharucha,J.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1121
... ... ... ... ..... um provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of section 28 of the act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of S.28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well." In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principle of interpretation. Hence the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1120
... ... ... ... ..... Act." 14. The decision in the case of P. Anand Gajapathi Raju (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court again and reiterated the same view in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi and Ors. . 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it needs hardly a reiteration that when an application as filed in a court all subsequent applications in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has to be filed in the same court. The Court is defined under Section 2(e) of the Act but it includes the High Court in it original jurisdiction. Otherwise the same has to be filed in the principal court of civil jurisdiction. Keeping with the pecuniary jurisdiction it could only be filed in this court and that has been done so. 16. As a result of the reasons given the objection of the respondent's learned counsel is to be negatived and it is held that this court could only entertain the said application. 17. List it on 7th November, 2001 for further directions.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1119
... ... ... ... ..... be taken to his non-production of forms before the last date. Only when forms are not produced even on the last date to which the proceedings are posted, and are subsequently produced at appellate/ revisional stage, the assessee would be required to show justifiable reason as to why they were not produced at assessment stage. 6.. In the aforesaid background, we quash the order passed by the revisional authority and remit the matter back to the assessing officer to examine the matter afresh. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the petitioner appear before the assessing officer on October 3, 2001, with relevant documents without further notice, so that they can be examined by the assessing officer and fresh decision can be taken in accordance with law. 7.. It goes without saying that if assessee does not appear on the aforesaid date, it shall be open to the assessing officer to proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1118
... ... ... ... ..... granted in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated May 20, 1996. In that view of the matter, before taking any adverse decision against the interest of the petitioners, fair play in action and principles of natural justice required that the affected parties like the petitioners should have been noticed and heard in the matter. That has not been done in any of these writ petitions. 7.. On that short ground, we allow these writ petitions and quash the impugned proceedings in each of these writ petitions. No costs. 8.. However, we make it very clear that this order shall not come in the way of the State Level Committee or concerned District Level Committees to take appropriate steps to cancel final eligibility certificates granted to the petitioners strictly in conformity with the principles of natural justice and in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated May 20, 1996 read with G.O. Ms. No. 134, dated July 1, 1996. 9.. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1117
... ... ... ... ..... on it. As per section 11, the assessing authority shall refund to the person the amount of tax and penalty if any paid by such person in excess of the amount due from him. Section 10 of the Act provides for payment of entry tax and section 11 of the Act provides for refund of excess tax paid. In the present case, after adjusting the tax payable by the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act in the entry tax paid, there is availability of excess amount of tax paid by the petitioner and as such, the petitioner is entitled for refund of such excess amount. In view of some dispute with regard to the amount of tax payable by the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the learned single Judge has directed the second respondent to hold an enquiry in this regard and refund the balance if any. We agree with the reasonings of the learned single Judge and there are no merits in the appeal. 8.. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1116
... ... ... ... ..... nt. The Notification S.R.O. No. 717 of 1988 also provides the mode in which a dealer can claim exemption from levy of turnover tax. It has to be noted that the petitioners have not attempted to comply with either the requirements of rule 9(k)(ii) of the Rules or of the notification. The argument of learned counsel that a distinction must be kept between the goods taxable at the sale point and the goods taxable at the purchase point cannot be accepted in the light of the decisions above referred to. In fact, the very same argument was negatived by a division Bench of this Court in Kerala Produce and Export Company, Kozhikode v. State of Kerala 1998 111 STC 357 (1997) 5 KTR 221. With respect, we see no reason to differ from the reasoning and the conclusion of the division Bench of this Court. In the light of this position, we are satisfied that no interference is called for with the decision of the Tribunal in these cases. The revisions are hence dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1115
... ... ... ... ..... . Words which are not part of the vocabulary of the average consumer of the goods in question, should be approached with greater degree of caution while trying to ascertain its popular meaning. While chemists are familiar with the term detergent and know its properties, it cannot be said that the word detergent is a part of the common mans vocabulary. The products used for cleansing are sought by the average consumer by their brand name or by specifying the purpose for which the goods are required. The average consumer will not ask the shopkeeper simply for a detergent. The Revenues own understanding of the scope of this term, therefore, becomes all the more important and its consistent view for a quarter of a century disentitles the Government from now contending that the popular meaning of the term is such as to exclude from within the scope of detergent, the powder containing a detergent manufactured by the assessee. The writ petitions are allowed. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1114
... ... ... ... ..... on the purchase of iron or steel to manufacture shutter cannot be regarded as tax that would be payable on the shutter as well. 12.. The very illustration the counsel gave about making a painting itself demonstrates effectively in the intent of the Parliament in effecting the amendment. The object of the amendment was to bring into the tax net the items, which otherwise could not have been brought to tax, and it is not meant to be a sieve through which goods liable to be taxed are allowed to escape tax. 13.. The change in the form referred to in article 366(29-A) of the Constitution is not change in the form of the goods to other commercially distinct and taxable goods. The change of form referred to therein, is the change of goods into another form which by itself would not have been taxable but for the use of that expression in article 366(29-A). 14.. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1113
... ... ... ... ..... cannot assume any jurisdiction for entertaining the appeal. In the event such appeals are entertained by the authorities without compliance of the pre-deposit, such act of the respondents would be considered outside the power of amended section 34 of the Act. 10.. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the impugned order of the respondents in W.P. No. 5391 of 2001 insisting the petitioner to deposit 25 per cent of the difference of tax as assessed would be considered as illegal. Accordingly, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be rejected. 11.. In view of the same reasons, a writ of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 4355 and 4356 of 2001 entertaining the appeal and dispose of the same by the respondents without insisting 25 per cent of the difference of tax cannot also be granted. 12.. For all the reasons, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are also dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1112
... ... ... ... ..... o should take the action. It is always open to the assessee to show the lack of justification for the action and also to contest the findings of the authority as and when given after hearing the affected parties. 5.. The notice impugned before the authorities being admittedly one given by the assessing authority referred to in section 16(1)(a) of the Act, the notice was perfectly valid and within the jurisdiction of the authority. The Tribunal was right in declining to interfere though the reasons given by it for not interfering are not reasons which we can approve of. 6.. Counsel submitted that some reasonable time may be granted to the assessee to file its objections to the notice, as that had not been done so far. Four weeks time from today is granted to the assessee to file its objections before the authority. The authority shall, thereafter, proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1111
... ... ... ... ..... it is seen that Suriya Prakash had applied for being declared as insolvent. The further proceedings if any in that regard is also a matter which the assessing authority should ascertain in order to lodge his claim against the estate of the said Suriya Prakash. It is open to the assessing authority to proceed against Pandurangan, who is said to be the other partner after the authority is satisfied that the said Pandurangan had in fact been inducted as a partner in the year 1991. 14.. The assessee shall, within four months from today, furnish a statement to the authority showing the amounts payable towards tax up to December 31, 1991 and shall also make payment. The authority shall proceed with the determination of the facts which he is directed to determine, expeditiously, and proceed against those concerned for the recovery of tax for the period subsequent to December 31, 1991. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. W.M.P. is closed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1110
... ... ... ... ..... y the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the same had been confirmed by Appellate Tribunal need not be interfered with. 19.. It is clear cut specific finding that in respect of a turnover of Rs. 28,615 the assessees were not able to produce either bill of lading or form H certificate towards the sale of jaggery effected for export. Even now, there is no material to displace the said finding. So the petitioners are not eligible for the exemption claimed in respect of this turnover of Rs. 28,615 for the sales of jaggery effected. So the petitioners are liable to pay tax, at the rate of 5 per cent including Rs. 28,615 as held by the lower authorities. For the reasons already stated above both the revisions are dismissed in all respects. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 2nd day of February, 1999. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1109
... ... ... ... ..... ted January 11, 2001 and January 19, 2001 (annexure B collectively) restraining the respondents from recovering the sales tax from the petitioner for the period prior to June 30, 2001 except in accordance with the BIFR scheme and except with the prior permission of the BIFR. We further direct the petitioner-company to inform the respondent-authorities about the progress and/or failure of the Scheme before the BIFR and the final outcome of the proceedings before the BIFR as and when they stand concluded before the BIFR. 5.. The respondent authorities shall also issue form Nos. C , H and 19 to the petitioner-company in accordance with law after proceeding on the basis that no coercive recovery is to be made from the petitioner-company for the sales tax dues for the period prior to June 30, 2001 as per aforesaid directions. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only with no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1108
... ... ... ... ..... ashed and set aside and respondent No. 1 will have to be directed to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and particularly in light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company 1998 109 STC 439 and in light of the stand of the State Government as recorded in Giriraj Sales Corporation v. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No. 2648 of 1996 decided on December 18, 1998 2002 125 STC 369. 9.. The petition is accordingly allowed. The assessment order dated July 30, 2001 for the assessment year 1995-96 in case of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to frame the assessment in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions. Consequently, the attachment orders dated July 19, 2001 and July 27, 2001 under sections 48 and 48A respectively of the Act are also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
........
|