|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 491 Records
-
2002 (10) TMI 800
... ...
... ... ..... ertificate issued by the foreign company that the logo used by the Indian manufacturer does not belong to them and that they have no claim to the logo. Trade-marks/logos are valuable assets and their owners would not easily brook usurpation of such assets by others. In the present case, since the foreign company has specifically disowned the logo, there is no basis to the revenue's allegation that the logo belonged to the foreign company. Further, as noted by the Commissioner (Appeals), the allegation itself is that the Indian manufacturer's logo is deceptively similar to the logo of the foreign company and not that the Indian company is using the logo of another. Madras High Court has held that use of deceptively similar logo is not barred under the notification. In the above facts and circumstances, we find no error or impropriety in the order of the Commissioner. There is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. It is rejected. ( Pronounced in the open Court )
-
2002 (10) TMI 799
... ...
... ... ..... RDER Delay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 798
... ...
... ... ..... ation of U.P. v. North India Petrochemicals Ltd. and Anr., . 6. Having applied our mind to the ratio of the aforesaid two cases, the materials on record and the materials placed before us in course of the arguments, we are of the considered opinion that a case for winding up in accordance with Section 433(1)(e) of the Act has not been made out and the division bench committed error in not considering all the relevant materials and yet in jumping to the conclusion that a case for winding up has been made out. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders admitting the petition for winding up and directing publication of citation. We further direct that the bank guarantee, which has been furnished by the appellant, shall remain valid until disposal of the pending suit No. 1017/95 and the High Court is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year from today. 7. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (10) TMI 797
... ...
... ... ..... ORDER Stay confirmed pending hearing of the Appeal.
-
2002 (10) TMI 796
... ...
... ... ..... e a memorandum of appeal is not filed under Order 41 Rule 9 will not, to our mind, make the appeal filed in the appellate court as a defective one. 24. No order contentions were raised. As already observed, if any difficulties are felt, these can be placed before the Committee constituted hereinabove. The Committee would consider the said difficulties and make necessary suggestions in its report. It is hoped that the amendments now made in the Code of Civil Procedure would help in expeditious disposal of cases in the trial courts and the appellate courts. 25. It would be open to the Committed to seek directions. The Committee is requested to file its report within a period of four months. To consider the report, list these petitions after four months. Copies of this judgment be sent to the Registrars of all the High Court’s so that necessary action can be taken by the respective High Courts and any writ petition pending in those High Courts can be formally disposed of.
-
2002 (10) TMI 795
... ...
... ... ..... r dated 11.10.96, the confirmation letter of the respondent dated 25.3.97 and the admission of liability by the Managing Director of the respondent company in their letter dated 30.12.98, I am of the view that the stand taken by the respondent in their letter dated 30.9.99 is not a bona fide denial. I conclude that the respondent company has failed and neglected to pay the sums due to the petitioner. I am also satisfied that the respondent is unable to discharge its liability and is liable to be wound up in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. In the result, the Company Petition is admitted. It is ordered to be advertised not later than 14 days before, the next date of hearing in one issue of Tamil daily "Makkal Kural", one issue of English daily "News Today" and in the official Gazette of the state of Tamil Nadu mentioning the hearing date as 08.11.2002 and also serve Notice on the Company Petition. Call the Company Petition on 8.11.2002.
-
2002 (10) TMI 794
... ...
... ... ..... e procedure prescribed under Section 8. The only submission that was advanced on behalf of the appellant was that since the deposit of rent had been made, a lenient view ought to be taken. We are unable to agree with this. The appellant failed to satisfy the conditions contained in Section 8. Mere refusal of the landlord to receive rent cannot justify the action of the tenant in straightaway invoking Section 8 (5) of the Act without following the procedure contained in the earlier sub-sections i.e. sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the eviction order passed against appellant with respect to the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent needs no interference. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, does not call for interference. These appeals are dismissed. We are informed that the landlords have already taken possession of the suit premises in pursuance of the High Court judgment.
-
2002 (10) TMI 793
... ...
... ... ..... Delhi, which was followed by the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has been dismissed by this Court, we condone the delay but dismiss the appeals.
-
2002 (10) TMI 792
... ...
... ... ..... espondents 1-5 that a different procedure has to be followed for acquisition of land by the State for the purpose of a private company. There is no dispute on that point. We fail to understand how this contention advances the case of the respondents when they did not challenge the acquisition proceedings, even on that ground if it was available within reasonable time. It was too late for them to challenge the acquisition proceedings on that ground as well. For all that is stated above, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents 1-5 is dismissed. For the same reason the judgments dated 4.9.1992 in C.W.P. Nos. 8181-8166 of 1992 are also liable to be and are hereby set aside, having regard to the fact that the judgments in these cases have been rendered merely by following the decision dated 5.3.1992 in C.W.P. No. 14735 of 1991. The appeals are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (10) TMI 791
... ...
... ... ..... ondoned. The civil appeal is dismissed on merits.
-
2002 (10) TMI 790
... ...
... ... ..... he second question is concerned, it appears from the record that the assessee is not maintaining any guest house at the site of the mines at Sirohi Road but maintaining a structure to provide certain common facilities to the staff and workers, who had to be provided a shelter at the mines for the purpose of taking meals and recreation facilities during the working of the mines and also for providing safety zone while the blasting in the mines is in operation. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of facts, has arrived at the conclusion that the expenditure was not on the guest house. Thus, the expenditure of ₹ 16,478 has been rightly disallowed (sic-allowed) under section 37(4). The finding of fact does not give rise to any referable question of law. 9. No referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly refused to refer the question Nos. 1 and 2 for the opinion of this Court. All the three reference applications stand dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 789
... ...
... ... ..... the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. ." Having regard to the opinion of this Court in the last noted decision, question of affirmance of the impugned judgment cannot and does not arise more so by reason of the fact that even this Court searched in vain in regard to the availability of such an evidence. The High Court, in our view, has thus committed a manifest error in reversing the order of the Labour Court. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The impugned order stands set aside and quashed and the order of the Labour Court stands restored. No costs.
-
2002 (10) TMI 788
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 787
... ...
... ... ..... dentification in the court would have the effect of a sullied prosecution? The answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative. It is the concept of justice which predominates and if we reiterate this, the witness seems to be creditworthy and the acceptability would do away with the minor lapses. As such we do not find any merit or substance in the issue raised in support of the appeal. As regards (i) and (iii) above, it was contended that the weapons were not sent to the ballistic expert and no expert opinion is available connecting the gun with the empty cartridges. As noticed above, in the case in hand, no weapon was recovered, as such question of having any ballistic expert opinion as regards the gun and the empty cartridges would not arise. The preponderance of evidence available on record, in our view, does justify the view taken by the Designated Court and the same cannot and ought not to be interfered with. In that view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 786
... ...
... ... ..... airs and replacement of worn out parts are clearly deductible expenses. The assessee's counsel says that the modernisation expenditure referred to in the question is, in fact, expenditure on such replacement of parts and repairs. Counsel for the assessee submitted that what the assessee had done is in accordance with the instructions given by the Director of Handlooms and the assessee may have an opportunity to place those instructions which had not been placed before the Tribunal and the issue be re-determined by the Tribunal after giving that opportunity to that assessee. 5. Having regard to the fact that the assessee is a co-operative society which is said to have incurred losses in the past and is a society which operates under the control of the Director of Handlooms, we consider it fit to direct the Tribunal to provide that opportunity which the assessee now seeks. 6. Questions 2 and 3 are, therefore, returned unanswered with the direction to the Tribunal as above.
-
2002 (10) TMI 785
... ...
... ... ..... the Wealth-tax Rules. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the method of evaluation under Rule 1D would be applicable only to companies which are under liquidation or winding up and the method of evaluation to be adopted in the case of going concerns is the yield basis. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order of the Commissioner, affirming that of the Assessing Officer. The present reference has been made, at the instance of the Revenue, aggrieved against that order of the Tribunal. 3. Question similar to the one referred in this case has already been considered by the Apex Court and answered in favour of the Revenue, in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1994 207 ITR 1 1 wherein it was held that where there is a rule prescribing the manner in which a particular property has to be valued, the authorities under the Act have to follow it. Following that decision of the Apex Court we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (10) TMI 784
... ...
... ... ..... mmendations of the Committee shall be worked out by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the State Government and the company under the supervision and guidance and monitoring of the Committee. Before we part with the case, we note with concern that the State and the Central Government were not very consistent in their approach about the period for which the activities can be permitted. Reasons have been highlighted to justify the somersault. Whatever be the justification, it was but imperative that due application of mind should have been made before taking a particular stand and not to change colour like a Chameleon, and that too not infrequently. Certain proceedings have been initiated against the company for alleged violation of various statutes. These proceedings shall be considered by the respective forums/Courts in their proper perspective, uninfluenced by any observation made hereinbefore in this judgment. The Interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (10) TMI 783
... ...
... ... ..... l Government is not bound to accept all or every proposal or counter proposal". Applying the principle enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, Scheme of Section 3(1) of the Act read with the functions to be discharged by the Lokpal and the nature of his qualification, it is apparent that the consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and his opinion would have primacy. The nature of the consultation with the Leader of the Opposition is to apprise him about the proposal of selecting a person to the post and also to take his views on the said proposal. However, the opinion rendered by the Leader of the Opposition is not binding on the State Government and the Leader of the Opposition would have no power to recommend someone else for the said post. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 21.9.2001 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in O.J.C. No.14728 of 1996 is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (10) TMI 782
... ...
... ... ..... to comply with Section 82. The substance of the matter must govern, because hyper technicality when the public policy of the Statute is fulfilled, cannot be permitted to play the procedural tyrant to defeat the vital judicial process, namely, investigation into the merits of the case. We find no force in this point too raised by Respondent No.1. No other point has been urged. In the result, we allow the Civil Appeal No. 6593 of 2000 and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the Election Petition under Section 86 (1) of the Representation of Peoples Act for non- compliance with provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act. The findings of the High Court, however, repelling the two other grounds as raised by the respondent No. 1 relating to limitation and mention of the name of Abdul Khyer as respondent No. 11 are upheld. This disposes of SLP c (CC 8664/01) also accordingly. Costs of the proceedings to be borne by the respondent No. 1.
-
2002 (10) TMI 781
... ...
... ... ..... kay Industries v. Collector of Central, New Delhi 1997 (94) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) , in our view, there is no substance in these appeals. Hence, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
........
|
