|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 663 Records
-
2004 (8) TMI 755
... ...
... ... ..... een stayed by this Court and/or that there is any contrary Order of this Court. We are not going into the merits of such an Order but once there is such an Order the Appellants have to comply with that Order. They therefore cannot deduct TDS. 5. The Appellants have already paid interest at the rate of 18% per annum. On the basis of the ratio laid down by us in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra) the Appellants cannot claim any refund. The Appellants shall now pay, within 4 weeks from today, the amount deducted as TDS with interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon till the date of payment. 6. We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter having been passed on account of the special features of the case. The Forum/Commission will follow the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra) in future cases. 7. This Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 754
... ...
... ... ..... isdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. It shall deal with the application in its proper perspective in accordance with law afresh. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding acceptability or otherwise of the application for initiation of contempt proceedings. In a given case, even if ultimately the interim order is vacated or relief in the main proceeding is not granted to a party, the other side cannot take that as a ground for dis-obedience of any interim order passed by the Court. It is to be noted that after re-organisation of States, the dispute presently pertains to the State of Jharkhand, which has been substituted in place of original respondent, the State of Bihar. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 753
... ...
... ... ..... h he sides. We find that the Tribunal has already decided the issue involved here in case of the appellants as . In this decision the Tribunal has observed that since Rule 57CC prescribes reversal of an amount and not of Modvat credit availed or of duty; no machinery provision exist under the Rules for reversal of the amounts required under Rule 57CC, the reversal as ordered under Rule 57-1 or Section 11A cannot be upheld. We also find that in case of Pushpaman Forgings (supra), the Tribunal has given the similar finding and it was upheld by the Supreme Court. We accordingly are of the view that the present case is fully covered by this decision and the department cannot recover the amount under Rule 57I/57AH of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules or Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Commissioner and allow the appeals. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in the court on conclusion of the hearing on 6.8.2004)
-
2004 (8) TMI 752
... ...
... ... ..... in Union of India and Ors. v. Janardhan Debanath and Anr. (2004)IILLJ1057SC . It has to be noted that the High Court proceeded on the basis as if the transfer was connected with the departmental proceedings. There was not an iota of material to arrive at the conclusion. No mala tides could be attributed as the order was purely on administrative grounds and in public interest. 7. In view of the settled position in law the judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set aside. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that respondent shall file a representation highlighting the various difficulties which may or have resulted from the transfer and the non-desirability thereof. If such representation is made to the appropriate authorities, it goes without saying that the same shall be considered in its proper perspective and in accordance with law. We do not express any opinion in that regard. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 751
... ...
... ... ..... rt. Even in a case where the procedural part has been followed still the Court can examine whether the ultimate decision is consistent with the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. 15. There is no set guideline for proving mala fide. It has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the entire investigation was conducted behind the back of the petitioners, I am satisfied that the actions taken and the order passed, even from the administrative point of view, are arbitrary and unreasonable. 16. I. therefore, set aside the order dated December 9, 2003 passed by the Managing Director of the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation. However, it will be open to the said corporation to initiate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petition and all connected application are, thus, disposed of. I make no order as to cost. All parties are to act on the signed copies of this judgment on the usual undertakings.
-
2004 (8) TMI 750
... ...
... ... ..... d at by the State Government was flawed in any way then the High Court should have, after laying down the necessary principles or guidelines or issuing directions, directed the State Government to reconsider the case of the respondent In no case, the High Court could have in exercise of its writ jurisdiction relaxed the need for full satisfaction of the necessary requirements on the fulfillment of which alone the respondent's entitlement to the release of freedom fighter's pension depended. The approach of the High Court cannot be countenanced. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decision of the State Government is restored. The respondent is still at liberty to make representation afresh to the State Government for reconsideration of his case and/or for relaxing the requirements of the Scheme. But on that we express no opinion of our own. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms but without any order as to the costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 749
... ...
... ... ..... und to impose the same penalty imposed by him in all similar cases. 11. We have now to decide on three issues, namely, (i) whether there were irregularities; and if it is in affirmative, (ii) whether they were merely of technical nature or were of serious irregularities, and (iii) the nature of penalty is to be imposed. In our view the irregularities observed in the inspection cannot be treated as a very serious irregularity. It cannot also be said that the nature of punishment should be so harsh that the appellant would have to cease working for a period of six months. The consequences are of far reaching not only to the appellant but also to its clients and employees. 12. Taking into account more or less similar cases where respondent rightly issued the warning rather than close the business, we feel it appropriate to modify the penalty from six months to a warning to the appellant. In this view of the matter the impugned order is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 748
... ...
... ... ..... same goods was made immediately after the purchase at a lower rate. A detailed chart was got prepared in respect of the purchases from the sister concerns and the corresponding sales effected by the assessee. It was found that the assessee had suffered a loss of ₹ 24,555 in this process. The Tribunal accordingly restored the addition to the extent of ₹ 24,555 only. 5. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the stock register produced by the assessee was fully verified by the Tribunal in the presence of the Departmental Representative. Thus, the objection of the Assessing Officer that there was no detail in respect of closing stocks did not survive. The only other objection of the Assessing Officer regarding the purchases made from the sister-concern at an inflated price has duly been dealt with by the Tribunal and the resultant loss in the process has been disallowed. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 747
... ...
... ... ..... financial institution and therefore Division Bench has in the aforesaid judgment held that an application by debenture trustees even if it is a financial institution would not lie in Debt Recovery Tribunal but they have to file a Civil suit in Civil Court. In the present case, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not suing the petitioner in their capacity as the debenture trustee holders but they are claiming their amount towards the dues payable under the loan agreement and, therefore, the present application under Section 19 of the DRT Act, 1993 is legal and maintainable. 18. In the aforesaid view that we have taken, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Thus, we dismiss the same and uphold the order passed by the learned Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 5.5.2004 in Misc. Appeal No. 132 of 2004. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court.
-
2004 (8) TMI 746
... ...
... ... ..... hority has been presented by the Inquiry Officer, by conducting regular examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses by taking them through the prosecution case. The Inquiry Officer has also conducted regular cross-examination of the defence witnesses. This is not a case where the Inquiry Officer merely put a few questions to clarify certain aspects. The Inquiry Officer has put questions to present the prosecution case and make out the prosecution case. Leading questions suggestive of answers have been put to the prosecution witnesses. The fact that Inquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer is not seriously disputed. In fact it is sought to be justified as permissible as per Railway Board circulars. In the circumstances, we find that the inquiry was vitiated. 18. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has reserved liberty to petitioners to resume the inquiry from the stage of appointment of Presenting Officer. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 745
... ...
... ... ..... he case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted is not required to be indicated. 12. Above being the position, the cryptic non-reasoned order of the High Court, is clearly indefensible. 13. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The bail bonds of the respondent No. 2 - accused are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to custody forthwith and in case he does not do so it shall be the duty of the respondent No. 1 - State to take him to custody immediately. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that after charge-sheet is placed and/or charge is framed, the accused shall move for bail afresh. If it is so done, it goes without saying the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law, about which we express no opinion. 14. Appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 744
... ...
... ... ..... e. Therefore, the observations made in the said case would not be of much assistance to the case of the petitioners. The Supreme Court in EID Parry Limited’s case while agreeing with the view expressed in Kothari’s case has reiterated the principle that any amount paid as ex-gratia payment or as an advance amount cannot be the component of the purchase price and therefore can legitimately be included in the turnover of the purchasing dealer. But if the sale price is fixed statutorily, then the only obligation of the purchaser under the agreement would be to pay the price only and no other amount can be included in the purchase price even if the same is paid by the purchaser to the seller. 17. In view of this settled legal position, we are of the view that the question of law raised by the petitioners requires to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 18. In the result, petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 743
... ...
... ... ..... e. Merely because he had stated so, it cannot be concluded that he did not receive any written information. It had been reduced in writing in Ext. P6 as the original cannot be given in court as the informant insisted not the disclose his identity. The appellant could have at least cited any one of the Zonal Office if there is much dispute as to whether it had been received or not. PW4 had stated that he had sent the information with covering letter to the Zonal Office. Therefore that contention cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 and Ext. P1 disclosed that the contraband had been seized from the accused/appellant and Exts. P6, P16 and P17 disclosed that the substance seized was heroine, a manufactured drug. Necessarily, these are the conclusive evidence to prove the offence under Section 21 of the Act. In such circumstances, I find no reason to disbelieve PW1. Therefore, the conviction cannot therefore be said to be unjustified. Appeal fails, dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 742
... ...
... ... ..... duly identified either by an Advocate or notarized by Public Notary .Similarly, the receipts when issued should also be identified by an Advocate and/or a union leader or an office bearer of the said company identifying that the said workman of the said company and is entitled to the amount received by him. xi) The rate derived on the basis of the aforesaid formula will be thereafter advertised by giving an advertisement in the same newspapers as mentioned above i.e. one English newspaper and one newspaper in vernacular language. 11. The aforesaid procedure will be followed as an interim procedure by the Presiding Officer till and until the regulations are formulated by the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal as directed in the present judgment by us. 12. We dispose of the present writ petition accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this court.
-
2004 (8) TMI 741
... ...
... ... ..... ed by them to bank for the purpose of obtaining credit facility. The ratio of the above order is applicable on all fours to the present case, therefore following the same we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the Commissioner dropping duty demands of ₹ 1,73,11,872/- and ₹ 55,11,497/- raised in two show cause notices dt. 17.4.2000 and 18.4.2000 April 1995 to March 2000 and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeals. 3. In the cross objections the assessees seek expunction of the finding of the Commissioner in Para 62 that the allegation that the name of the buyer shown in the invoice is fictitious, is true to some extent, on the ground that name of the buyers are fictitious. However in view of the fact that we are upholding the Commissioner's order dropping the proceedings initiated against the assessees, we are of the view that we are not required to deal with the point raised in the cross-objection and accordingly dismiss the same.
-
2004 (8) TMI 740
... ...
... ... ..... attenuating circumstances of the case. The doctrine of res judicata could not be applied when the Court felt that the applications were not maintainable. In our considered view, this is not a case of inaction or negligence on the part of the appellants. 11. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Jalgaon on October 13, 1999 and confirmed by the High Court on December 18, 2003, are set aside and the applications stand allowed. In the facts and circumstances, however, the appellants will pay an amount of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 by way of costs. Let the amount be paid within a period of three months from today. The lower appellate court thereafter will hear the appeal on merits and decide it in accordance with law on or before 31st August, 2005. The appeal is allowed accordingly to the extent indicated above.
-
2004 (8) TMI 739
... ...
... ... ..... any figures to show the alleged loss to the exchequer. Further, when a Scheme is challenged, we have to look at it as an entire package. We have to see the tender price, the cost of putting up amenities like ECS, the cost-benefit ratio, the future projections in terms of increase in revenue, employment etc. None of these facts have been brought out in the petition. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that the above concessions have been given arbitrarily to the developers. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the Civil Appeal No. 5402 of 2004, arising out of SLP (C) No.7790 of 2004, as well as in the Transferred Case No.54 of 2004 Writ Petition No.10137 of 2004 of Allahabad High Court and the same are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. We direct respondent no.3 to pay respondent no.2 the balance 75% of the premium in terms of Item 12 of letter of allotment dated 12.4.2004 within one week from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
-
2004 (8) TMI 738
... ...
... ... ..... ainst another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. "Cause of action" has also been taken to mean that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action". When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the concerned magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to respondent No.2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 737
... ...
... ... ..... issioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by holding that the return filed under section 139(4) of the Act cannot be revised under section 139(5) of the Act. We have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue. 3. The controversy has now been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT 1996 220 ITR 67 1. The Apex Court has held that no revised return can be filed under sub-section (5) of section 139 of the Act in a case where the return is filed under section 139(4). Once this is so, the revised return filed by the assessee is invalid in law and could not have been treated and acted upon as a revised return contemplated by sub-section (5) of section 139 of the Act. 4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 736
... ...
... ... ..... f cases since it was rendered. It has been referred to recently in many cases e.g. S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat 2001CriLJ4195 , M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja 2003CriLJ3117 and earlier in many oft cited decisions in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992CriLJ527 , Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary 1993CriLJ600 , Union of India v. W.N. Chadha 1993CriLJ859 and State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1991CriLJ1438 . We can only express our anguish at the falling standards of professional conducts. Impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. We remit the matter back to the High Court so that it can deal the petitions afresh and decide on merits taking into account the decision and all other relevant aspects of this Court. All the petitions before the High Court which were disposed of by the impugned judgment shall stand restored to its original position to be dealt with in accordance with law. 7. Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.
........
|
