|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 604 Records
-
2005 (5) TMI 676 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ill be selected by virtue of their seniority. Whether this result that follows from the application of the criterion that is being adopted by the Commission is contrary to the statutory Regulations or whether such criteria would be violative of Articles 14 & 16, is a matter which might deserve serious consideration. But, in the absence of specific challenge to the rule or the procedural guidelines spelt out in the additional affidavit filed by the UPSC and the arguments not having been advanced on this aspect, we are not inclined to express a definite opinion on this aspect. Taking an overall view and having due regard to the limitations inherent in judicial review of selection process by an expert body, we are not inclined to nullify the decision taken by the UPSC. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and hold that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application filed by the 1st respondent. The appeals are thus allowed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he view taken by the Additional Rent Controller is correct as the wife of the tenant-respondent has purchased a flat and they have alternative accommodation. We do not see any ground for giving this latitude to the respondent. We are of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to be not sustainable in view of the concurrent finding by the courts below i.e. the Additional Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal. No reasons are disclosed in the order of the High Court for holding that the alternative accommodation acquired was not for residential purpose. We do not see any reason for the High Court to have interfered with the matter. Hence, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated July 23, 2004 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Main No.328 of 2003 by the High Court of Delhi and affirm the orders passed by the Additional Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (5) TMI 674 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... curtail the scope of Crl. Misc. Petition filed in 1993 more so when no action was taken thereon and it remained pending. 8. We are, therefore, of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the bar under Section 125(3) cannot be applied and the High Court has erred in reversing the order of Sessions Judge. It must be borne in mind that Section 125 Cr. P.C. is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter. It is unreasonable to insist on filing successive applications when the liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Tumkur in Crl. R.P. No. 194 of 2000. The learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps under Section 125(3) in case the arrears of maintenance is not paid within three months.
-
2005 (5) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o ₹ 10000/-." We do not think that reliance on this section in any way advances the contention canvassed by the counsel in favour of overruling the view taken by the majority in Velliappa. It is obvious that notwithstanding such an amendment made in 1984, a body corporate cannot be visited with imprisonment for any term. This section, therefore, is of the same nature as the ones which were the subject matters in the fiscal statutes like Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act or Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. That the Parliament is alive to the situation and has remedied the difficulty with alacrity is really indicative of its recognition of the correctness of the majority view taken in Velliappa. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the majority view of this Court in Velliappa is correct and does not require any reconsideration by this Bench. All the matters comprised in this group be placed before appropriate Benches for disposal in accordance with law.
-
2005 (5) TMI 672 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ving a contrary view to the judicial decisions (supra) relied upon by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals), supporting the legal view adopted by the assessee while claiming the impugned depreciation. 31. On the other hand, the learned authorised representative for the assessee, placing reliance on the same decisions (supra) cited before the CIT (Appeals) reiterated the submissions before us earlier made before the CIT (Appeals). 32. In this view of the matter on carefully considering the order of the CIT (Appeals), we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the well-reasoned and well-discussed order of the CIT (Appeals), supported by the judicial decisions and accounting principles. Accordingly, the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting the impugned disallowance of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer is upheld and ground No. (ii) of appeal of the revenue for assessment year 1995-96 is rejected. 33. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue, are dismissed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a departure from minimum sentence is equally applicable to the High Court. The only reason indicated by the High Court is that the accused belonged to rural areas. The same can by no stretch of imagination be considered either adequate or special. The requirement in law is cumulative. 22. Considering the legal position as indicated above the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 23. We remit the matter to the High Court to hear the matter only relating to sentence. Normally, in view of the established law on the subject we would have closed the matter. But learned counsel for the accused submitted that the High Court has not noted several other mitigating factors which were placed for consideration and granted relief on the indicated reasons. The High Court shall consider factors to be placed for consideration and decide the question of sentence keeping in view the principles indicated above. 24. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-
2005 (5) TMI 670 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tnership and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 were misusing the corporate entity of the respondent No.1 to deny their liability. So far as the material available on record is concerned, it clearly indicates that the petitioners had made out their case that not only the respondent No.1 was liable but the respondent Nos.2 to 5 were also liable jointly and severally. In the result, therefore, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The award impugned in the petition is modified. It is held that by the award, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are directed to pay to the petitioners an amount of ₹ 3,72,78,897/- with interest calculated on the amount at the rate of 15 p.a. from 1st December 2002 upto the date of payment. Petition is disposed off. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall pay costs of the petition to the petitioners as incurred by the petitioners. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Personal Secretary as true copy. Certified copy expedited.
-
2005 (5) TMI 669 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion of its jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claims of the appellant. It, thereforee, does not lie in their mouth to urge that the impugned order does not fall under sub-section 2 or 3 of Section 16 of the Act. 16. Having considered the matter from different angles more particularly having regard to the order of this Court dated 17.1.2002, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order/finding of the Arbitrator holding that the counter-claims other than those raised in the letter dated 5.5.2000 cannot be entertained and adjudicated upon because those are pre-mature claims and are outside the ambit of the expression ' dispute' is legally unsustainable and thereforee liable to be set aside. 17. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Arbitrator is hereby set aside and the Arbitrator is directed to entertain and adjudicate upon all the counter-claims made by the appellant herein before the Arbitrator in accordance with law.
-
2005 (5) TMI 668 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the case of SHARAT HARDWARE INDUSTRIES P.LTD., reported in 48 Company Cases 23 (Del.) And MAHAAMBA INVESTMENTS LIMITED VS. IDI LIMITED reported in 105 Company Cases 16 (Bom.). This Court has also taken the same view in the order passed on 19.2.2004 in Company Application No.43/2004 and in Company Application Nos.85, 86 and 87 of 2005 decided on 7.3.2005. She has further submitted that in view of the above facts and the law laid down by various Courts it is not necessary for the holding Company to take out separate proceedings for the amalgamation of the wholly owned subsidiary. She has, therefore, submitted that the publication of the notices in the Government Gazette be dispensed with. Considering the submission made in para-20 of the application as well as having gone through the aforesaid order, the Court grants the aforesaid prayer and accordingly the separate proceedings for the Transferee Company be dispensed with. The present application is accordingly disposed off.
-
2005 (5) TMI 667 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in 1996, according to the defendants. Such being the position neither the contents of the fluid used in the device nor the design justifies the statement that the same are 15 years old. I am, Therefore, of the view that the telecast of the modified commercial is liable to be retrained not only because the commercial disparages the product manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff but also because the claim made by the defendant about any technological advantage justifying the disparagement are not substantiated. 33. I, accordingly, direct that pending disposal of the suit, the defendants shall not telecast the commercial advertisements in its original form or in the modified form as at Annexure-P4 to is No. 127/2005. 34. IAs No. 7128/04, 7547/04 & 127/05 are with these directions disposed of. CS(OS) No. 1184/2004 Post for admission and/or denial of the documents before the Joint Registrar on 1st September 2005. The parties may file any further documents in the meantime.
-
2005 (5) TMI 666 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d for valuable consideration, such a transfer would not be annulled and the burden of proof that transaction as not in good faith or not for valuable consideration, would be on the O.L. or the creditors challenging the transfer. To the same effect is the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sunder Lal Jain v. Sandeep Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 1986 60 Comp Case 77. More proximate to the facts of this case would be the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Estate Development Ltd. in Re 1957 27 Comp Case 581. In that case it was held that where a contract was already concluded prior to commencement of winding-up and transaction was merely completed during the period of winding-up in pursuance of such contract, Section 536(2) of the Act, which deals with avoidance of transfers etc., after commencement of winding-up, would have no application. 12. I, therefore, do not find any merit in these applications and dismiss the same. No costs.
-
2005 (5) TMI 665 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Share capital - Seeking reduction of share capital - mandatorily de-listed from the Stock Exchange - market value of the shares of the company, immediately prior to de-listing - whether the proposed reduction is unfair or inequitable - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the petitioner has given its own justification for its move to reduce the share capital and that too in a specific manner. Admittedly, the effect of the reduction of share capital in the manner contemplated in the scheme is to extinguish the public shareholding and reduce the shareholding of the Lancaster and not affecting shareholding of the promoter. The result would be that the promoter and its subsidiary, namely, Lancaster would hold 100% equity after the proposed reduction. Further, the act of Lancaster in making exit offers three times before the proposed reduction would show that the idea was to acquire the entire shareholding held by public at large.
As far as valuation of shares is concerned, it may be noted that this task was assigned to M/s. T.R. Chadha and Co., Chartered Accountants. They submitted their valuation report which reflects that 'Net Asset Valuation Method' (Asset approach) and 'Earning Per Share Method' (Income method) was adopted. Using the 'Net Valuation Method' value per share works out to ₹ 61=73p. per share. Under the 'Earning Per Share Method' the earning per share was computed at ₹ 18=90p. The Chartered Accountants accordingly determined the value per share of the petitioner company using PE multiple, which is based on the PE multiples of comparable companies in the faster moving consumer goods sector. Based on this methodology the value per share of the petitioner company was ascertained at ₹ 231=62p.
From the report it is clarified that the valuer has assigned a greater weight to the earnings per share method and accordingly the fair value per share, based on a weighted average of the aforementioned two methods was determined at ₹ 174.99 per share, which amount is 43% lower than the price of ₹ 250/- per share being offered by the petitioner company to its shareholders whose shareholding is proposed to be reduced. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the valuation of the shares of the petitioner company has not been undertaken on a book value basis alone as alleged. The independent valuer has compared values on net asset value, earnings per share and has determined the fair value in accordance with accepted valuation principles.
To summarise, when in the instant case 99.97% shareholders have supported the resolution of reduction of share capital; the valuation of the share is arrived at in a reasonable manner and lucrative price for the share is offered; and above all the petitioner has agreed that the objectors may retain their shares, I do not find any legal impediment or any valid reason for not accepting the proposed scheme of reduction of share capital. It is allowed accordingly. The resolution and the Form of Minutes proposed to be registered u/s 103(i)(b) of the Act of the petition respectively, for reduction of paidup equity share capital of the petitioner company, are approved with the modification that the share capital shall be reduced from ₹ 32,91,31,880/- divided into 3,29,13,188 fully paidup equity shares of ₹ 10/- each to ₹ 26,27,96,120/- divided into 2,62,79,612 fully paid up equity share of ₹ 10/- each and these changes shall be incorporated in the Minutes. Amended Minutes be registered u/s 103(i)(b) of the Companies Act.
Petition stands disposed of.
-
2005 (5) TMI 664 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the High Court. In this view, learned Solicitor General seeks leave to withdraw the petitions so as to file an appropriate appeal before the High Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2005 (5) TMI 663 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he case, in the absence of anything to the contrary. Therefore, mere non-statement of the manner in which such income was derived would not make Expln. 5(2) inapplicable." 6. It may be mentioned here that it is not the case that tax along with interest has not been deposited. Case of the Revenue that tax was not deposited before filing of the return. Clause (2) of Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not say that the tax along with interest should be deposited before filing of the return. Though the Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter but we are of the opinion that merely because the tax has not been deposited before filing of the return would not make Expln. 5(2) inapplicable. 7. Respectfully following the principle laid down by this Court in IT Ref. No. 111 of 1993, CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (supra) we answer both the questions referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as costs
-
2005 (5) TMI 662 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... all come up for hearing as regards the interim relief on 1st April 2005. It appears that the petitioner failed to pay the requisite process fees and hence, the Registry had put up a submission before the Court on 22nd March 2005. The Court had accordingly directed that payment of process fees should be made on or before 25th March 2005 failing which the petition was liable to be rejected automatically without further orders. In fact, for non-compliance of the said order, the petition came to be rejected and the petitioner thereupon moved Misc. Civil Application No.626 of 2005 seeking restoration of the petition. Accordingly, the petition was restored by order of 4th April 2005. 7. Considering the fact that there are various matters which already pending prior in point of time, the alternative prayer is rejected. Registry to notify the main petition in due course of time as and when matters of 2005 are notified for final hearing. The Civil Application is accordingly rejected.
-
2005 (5) TMI 661 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he time the appeal came to be decided by the Appellate Authority on 1.3.1988, appellant No.1 had two children, as has been noted by the Appellate Authority. As an upshot of the above discussion we hold that the High Court was not right in applying third proviso to the facts of the case and deny the relief of eviction to the appellants. The first and the second proviso also do not come in the way of appellants. Their case of requirement within the meaning of Section 14(3)(a)(i) is fully made out. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Rent Controller as upheld by the Appellate Authority is restored. However, the tenant-respondent is allowed time upto 31.8.2005 for vacating the suit premises and delivering peaceful possession to the landlords, subject to filing the usual undertaking before the Rent Controller within a period of four weeks from today. The costs incurred by the landlords shall be borne by the tenant-respondent throughout.
-
2005 (5) TMI 660 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the authority which is a final fact-finding authority. These amended provisions cannot be of any help to the appellant before us. Further more, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Avinish Kumar Agarwal v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation) 2004 269 ITR 388 while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul ( supra) took the view that the Assessing Officer has no power under sections 131(1) and (4) of the Act to appoint a Departmental Valuation Officer. Reference can also be made to the case of Prakash Chand v. Dy. CIT 2004 269 ITR 2601 (MP), in this regard. 6. In view of the above settled position of law and the fact that questions proposed in the memorandum of appeal have been answered squarely by the above judgments, we are of the considered view that no question of law much less a substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal. Appeal is dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2005 (5) TMI 659 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petition challenging the issuance of the show cause notice. The High Court ignoring the well settled law that against a mere issuance of a show cause notice a Court should be reluctant to interfere, purported to go into the facts and quashed the show cause notice in a mechanical way. In our view the approach of the High Court was entirely wrong. All that had been done was that a show cause was issued. After the Respondents filed their reply, the notice may have been dropped or if the reply was not satisfactory based on the reply further inquires could have been made by the Appellants. An adjudication proceedings must not be stalled in the manner done by the High Court. We therefore, set aside the impugned orders. The Appellants will be at liberty to proceed with the show cause notice. Reply to the show cause notice must be filed within four weeks from today. Adjudication to take place thereafter. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (5) TMI 658 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rson to which both the lower authorities restricted, which is to the determination of issue of a related person under Section 4. The original authority also did not consider the question of admissibility of commission which appears to have been raised in Para 5. This order of the original authority was not taken in appeal by the Commissioner. In this view of the matter, when it is found that the charge in the show cause notice was that of a related person as brought out in Paras 7 & 8 thereof and Para 5 mentioned commission only in passing and issue of commission was not before the lower authorities and no findings were arrived at by the original authority and that order was not questioned by the Commissioner, we cannot uphold the present appeal filed before us on the aforesaid issue of commission and by not upholding the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals). We therefore find no merits in the appeal filed by Revenue and consequently reject the same. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (5) TMI 657 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the manufacture of the notified goods. The controversy in the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. The dealer opposite party purchased the raw material against Form 3B for manufacturing the Steel wire. Therefore it has not made any wrong and false declaration as held by this Court in the case of Campher Allied Products Ltd. (Supra) under Section 3B of the Act. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon (1) M/s Dayal Industries vs. CST reported in 1997 NTN (Vol. 11) 496; 1997 UPTC 975, (2) M/s Durang Steels vs. CST 1995 UPTC 250 and (3) Hindustan Safety Glass Works vs. CST reported in 1993 NTN (Vol. 3) 204; 1993 UPTC 1167 they are distinguishable and are not applicable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court given in the case of Campher and Allied Products (Supra) which is binding on me. Respectfully following the judgment of Division Bench I find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The revision is dismissed.
........
|
