|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 608 Records
-
2004 (7) TMI 686 - PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thority and can hardly be subjected to judicial review. But, where there is no material or totally irrelevant or insufficient material, in that event the Court would have no choice but to exercise its Jurisdiction to prevent violation of the freedom granted to the petitioners under Article 14 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Freedom to travel abroad can be circumvented on the premise and for the reasons which would strictly fall within the ambit and scope of the statutory provisions of the Act. 15. For the reasons aforestated, we allow both these petitions and direct the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners for issuance of passports and issue the same in accordance with law. of course and unless the respondents have such material in their power and possession on the basis of which they can exercise their power under Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act in light of our, above observations. However, the paroles are left to bear their own costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 685 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ,266 sq.ft., including machinery i.e., deep drawing hydraulic process etc., situated at Domar Pochempally in Ranga Reddy District”. We are told at the bar that the property was taken over by first respondent and was auctioned much before. We fail to understand as to why should this Court entertain a writ petition of the present nature, where the petitioner Department, itself can exercise its powers under Excise Act, and order recovery of any amounts due. There are ample powers available to Excise Department under Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder to recover the amounts due to it from any person. If the second respondent was in arrears and now the first respondent has come into his shoes, it is for the petitioner Department to see how to exercise its own powers to recover the amounts due from second respondent. We feel that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... easons stated above, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to the specific performance of agreement to sell the flat No. 71 on the 7th floor of Divya Prabha Building on the price mentioned in the agreement to sell which would be subject to the terms (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the last paragraph of the judgment of my learned Brother. There would be no order as to costs. The said decision cannot be said to constitute a binding precedent to the effect that in all cases where there had been an escalation of prices the court should either refuse to pass a decree on specific performance of contract of direct the plaintiff to pay a higher sum. No law in absolute terms to that effect has been laid down by this Court not is discernible from the aforementioned decision. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed'' However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 683 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... . 84/95 was available since this yarn could not said to have been cleared from the factory and that clearance from the factory means actual removal from the factory. 4. After due enquiry, the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-11, M-IV confirmed the demand. On filing the appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), also confirmed the duty demand, but, however, reduced the penalty amount to the tune of ₹ 75,000/-. 5. We have gone through the records. The issue appears to have been settled vide Order No. CB/673-675/WZB/Cri dated 24.05.2004. Out of the ₹ 4,00,000/- of duty demand, about 85 would be the credit on single yarn. Therefore, at this prima facie stage, we feel it appropriate to direct the assessee to pre-deposit of ₹ 1,00,000/- and compliance to be reported by 21.09.2004. On such clearance, further deposit is waived and recovery is stayed. The application is disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced in Court on 21.07.2004)
-
2004 (7) TMI 682 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Prasony Bai AIR2003SC718, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse the party from pursuing the remedy in law. 16. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this writ petition has been filed as an abuse of the process of the Court and is dismissed with the cost of ₹ 20.000/-. 17. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the District Collector, Meerut, and he is directed to recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner Om Prakash son of Late Munni Lal r/o House No. 48, Begum Bagh, Chakkiwali Gall, Meerut City as arrears of land revenue and deposit the same with the Legal Services Committee. High Court Allahabad, within a period of six weeks. 18. A copy of this judgment may be sent to the District Collector, Meerut, through the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court for compliance.
-
2004 (7) TMI 681 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in fact it does not apply at all. We have entered into the point whether the award is a foreign award or not more because sometimes there now prevails an unjustified aura about any award which is branded as a foreign award. The point also was dealt with by us because of the great time spent by the parties on this point, and because the appealability point was connected with it. The principal reason why we do not find the award of Mr. Cooke to be enforceable is that it cannot be said to have become binding in the face of a conflicting nil Indian award. 72. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The London award is declared to be inexecutable so long as the Indian nil award stands. The execution of the award passed by Mr. Cooke is refused. The appellants will be entitled to their costs both before us and in the Court below. 73. All parties and all others concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this judgment and order on the usual undertakings.
-
2004 (7) TMI 680 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 18. The applicants are, however, directed to file affidavit giving an undertaking that they would not raise the plea of limitation under the Hague Rules before the Arbitrator. 19. In case such affidavit is not filed within the period of 4(four) weeks from date the order of reference would stand revoked and the suit would stand revived to be heard by this Court. 20. In case, the undertaking is given and the disputes are not referred by the parties to arbitration within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the filing of the undertaking the suit would stand dismissed and the undertaking would stand discharged. 21. The bank guarantee furnished by the defendant be kept renewed for satisfaction of the award, if any, to be made in the proposed arbitration proceeding. There would be an order of stay of operation of the judgment and order for a period of 2(two) weeks from date. Urgent Xerox certified copy of the order would be given to the parties, if applied for.
-
2004 (7) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the conclusion that as the respondent was not in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business, therefore the order summoning her was bad in law. We are of the opinion that at the stage of summoning when evidence was yet to be led by the parties, the High Court could not on an assumption of facts come to a finding of fact that the respondent was not responsible for the conduct of the business. On this ground alone, these appeals are allowed and the impugned decision of the High Court is set aside." 14. Above being the position, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing, the charge framed so far as the present respondents are concerned. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It goes without saying that the trial Court shall consider the evidence and materials, to be placed by the parties in the proper perspective and in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
-
2004 (7) TMI 678 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g the procedure contemplated under Order VII Rule 10, 10(a) of C.P.C. The entire conduct of the plaintiff brought to surface his evil idea, to obtain an order behind the back of the parties, who are interested in the property and such a person need not be shown any leniency. In this view, instead of ordering return of plaint, I am constrained to strike out O.S.No.264/2003 from the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi, since it had no jurisdiction, thereby ordering the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, to delete the suit from the file. In the result, the revision is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi in I.A. No.1042/2003 in O.S. No. 264/2003, further ordering the learned Subordinate Judge, to delete the suit from his file, as it is not maintainable, for want of jurisdiction. Further, the first respondent in both the C.R.Ps. is directed to pay a sum of ₹ 3000/- as costs, in each C.R.P. C.M.P. Nos. 15093 and 15094 of 2003 are closed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 677 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erformance of contract of sale against the respondent is in force. Therefore, R.E.P.No. 59 of 1992 in O.S.No. 841 of 1981, originally filed by the deceased Perianna Nadar and on his death, now continued by his widow, daughter and sons, viz., the revision petitioners herein, is very much executable. Therefore, the order of the Executing Court refusing to execute the decree in O.S.No. 841 of 1981, subject matter of this revision, cannot be said to be proper and it is to be set aside being erroneous. Inasmuch as the R.E.P. No. 59 of 1992 is now pending for executing the decree in O.S. No. 841 of 1981 dated 11.2.1983, the Executing Court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. 16. In the light of the discussion made above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost. The order of the Executing Court in R.E.P. No. 59 of 1992 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Thiruchengode, is set aside. The Executing Court is directed to execute the decree expeditiously.
-
2004 (7) TMI 676 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stodian in Misc. Application No. 18 of 2004 is barred by the law of limitation. Firstly, this question was not argued before me and secondly this question already stands decided by this Court by its judgment in the case of A. K. Menon v. Modern Chemical Corporation, 2002 (1) All M. R. 180 and other cases. 11. In the result, therefore, Misc. Petition No. 25 of 2002 fails and is dismissed. Misc. Application No. 18 of 2004 succeeds and is allowed. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 companies are directed to deposit with the custodian the amount of ₹ 4,00,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 15 p.a. from the date of their deposit by the notified party with the companies, till the date of their deposit by the companies with the custodian. The amount shall be deposited by the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 companies within a period of six weeks from today. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay costs of these petition and application to the custodian as incurred by the custodian.
-
2004 (7) TMI 675 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... nd the connected records. We do not find any merit therein. The review petition, is therefore, dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 674 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... be an enquiry and the finding must be sustained by a higher degree of proof than that required in a civil suit, yet falling short of the proof required to sustain a conviction in a criminal prosecution. There must be convincing preponderance of evidence (see AIR 1984 SC 110). This we state because a Lead Manager, if found guilty of lack of due diligence, can suffer penal consequences, which could adversely affect his business. 22. In the present case before us although the appellant had an interim order in its favour, it was submitted that he declined to do business as a Lead Manager during pendency of the appeal since the appellant wished to clear its name of the smear. 23. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any justification for holding the appellant guilty of violating any Regulation or provisions of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent and the order passed by the Enquiry Officer. 24. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 673 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ompany. It seems to be after though of the respondent to frustrate the petition. 16. There are ample number of cases in which this Board has allowed the parties to part ways to find a permanent solution of the problem. I am of the view that this is a fit case of giving an option to the petitioners in case, they desire to go out of the company on return of their investment made in the respondent-company. If petitioners are willing to part with shares, then the respondent-company should purchase the shares on valuation to be made by an independent valuer. The valuation shall be based on the balance sheet as on 31-3-2001 being the approximate date after the Petitioner was removed from the Managing Directorship. In case the petitioners desire to go out the company, liberty is given to them for making an application for appointment of valuer by this Board in consultation with both the parties. 17. With the above direction the petition is disposed of. There is no order as to cost.
-
2004 (7) TMI 672 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... leveled against the company's auditor M/s Kumar Parveen and Associates for working against the interest of the company in connivance with the petitioner. The petitioner being a founder director and having invested a substantial amount in the company feels oppressed, I am of the view that petitioner should be given an option in case he desires to go out of the company on return of his investment in shares of the company. In case the petitioner is willing to part with his shares, the company/respondent should purchase the shares on valuation to be made by an independent valuer. The valuation will be based on the balance sheet as on 31.3.2001 being the approximate date of the removal of the petitioner from 8. directorship. In case the petitioner decides to go out of the company then on an application made by him, a valuer will be appointed by this Board in consultation with both the parties. 9. With the above directions, the petition is allowed. There are no orders to cost.
-
2004 (7) TMI 671 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... debt or other liability. But even in Section 139 N. I. Act, the legal presumption is created only for the cheque so received for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. In the case on hand, the complainant being a practising advocate, has not proved the debt amount payable towards him by the accused, who has engaged him as his lawyer to conduct the case. The finding of the trial Court that there is no debt or legally enforceable liability' does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. 15. In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court would be slow to interfere with the order of acquittal. Only if there are glaring infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice, the High Court would reverse the order of acquittal. No convincing grounds are made out warranting interference in the impugned order. This appeal is bereft of merits and is bound to fail. 16. C. A. No. 511 of 1997 -- For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 670 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... ince June 18, 1990. In these circumstances, the removal of the petitioner from the office of the managing director at the extraordinary general body meeting held on August 22, 2002, which was found to be against the principles of partnership, was held to be an act of oppression in the affairs of the company. Against this background, it is clarified that by our order dated November 24, 2003, it was intended that the petitioner must be given option to become the managing director of the company. This omission is accidental and, therefore, in exercise of the power under regulation 45 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, the order dated November 24, 2003, is amended, thereby giving the option to the petitioner to become the managing director of the company. This does not amount to review of our order and, therefore, there is no need to go into several of the decisions cited by Shri A.K. Mylsamy, in this behalf. 5. With these directions, the application stands disposed of.
-
2004 (7) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eliver the judgment on merits and in accordance with law is yet another aspect to be taken care of and at any cost it should not be permitted to go beyond the time frame fixed by this Court. Therefore, the Court below is perfectly right in rejecting the plea of the petitioner under this score also. For all the above discussions held, this Court is not inclined to cause its interference into the well considered and merited order passed by the lower Court in outright rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid manner and hence the following order In result, (i) the above Civil Revision Petition does not merit acceptance and the same is dismissed. (ii) The fair and decretal order dated 25.3.2004 made in unnumbered I.A. in D.No.1745 of 2004 in O.S.No.108 of 1998 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga is hereby confirmed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.6429 of 2004 is also dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 668 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... If a valid petition has been presented, any shareholder can ask for substituting himself as the petitioner." In the above circumstances, the CLB, in exercise of the inherent power under Rule 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 is empowered to substitute the applicant in the place of the second petitioner for further prosecuting the company petition, subject to its validity. The plea of Shri Seshadri that there are no enabling provisions as in the case of Section 405 of the Act or Rule 101 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1999 for substitution of any shareholder as a petitioner to any application under Section 397 or 398 will have no application in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the application is allowed substituting the applicant in the place of the second petitioner, who is allowed to withdraw from prosecuting the company petition. Ordered accordingly. With these directions, the company applications in CA 153/2004 and 154/2004 stand disposed of.
-
2004 (7) TMI 667 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... its paid up capital, within 10 days of receipt of communication from the petitioner that it wishes to continue as a member, by paying back the consideration received for the shares to the allottees of the shares in 2001. No dividend shall be paid on the shares issued in 2001 for the year 2003-2004. Since I have held that the petitioner cannot have its nominees on the Board, to ensure that its interests as a shareholder are not in any way prejudicially affected, I further direct, that, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the Articles or the Act, all decisions having effect on the rights of shareholders, shall be taken only in general meetings of the shareholders by passing special resolutions. 45. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order as to cost, reserving the right to appoint a valuer to determine the fair value of the shares and give consequential directions, on an application to be made by the petitioner in terms of the previous paragraph.
........
|
