|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 931 Records
-
2008 (9) TMI 999
... ...
... ... ..... oner that the arms licence has been suspended for an indefinite period is incorrect. The show cause notice directed the petitioner to appear on or before a particular date to show cause why his licence should not be revoked. The authorities had taken immediate steps and, if the petitioner had replied, the authorities would have been obliged to pass an order. Consequently, it could not be said that the suspension order was for an indefinite period. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, in view of the decision of the Court in Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate/Licensing Authority, Azamgarh and Ors. 1998(3)AWC2102 and in the case of Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2003(53)ALR 488, holding that the arms licence could not be suspended for an indefinite period, consequently, I direct the authority to conclude the proceedings and decide the matter within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.
-
2008 (9) TMI 998
... ...
... ... ..... se on hand, but the court below, without looking into the provisions and records, particularly the Encumbrance Certificate, has simply rejected the said petition. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the court below has not applied its mind in deciding the application for stay and it is necessary for the parties to let in proper evidence to decide the issue and in that view of the matter, the order of the Trial court dated 06.08.2008 made in E.A.No.243 of 2008 in E.P.No.52 of 1997 in O.S.No.346 of 1992 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration after taking into account the evidence let in by both the parties. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed on the above terms with a direction to the Court below to dispose of the matter within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 997
Appellant seeking to quash the chargesheet - FIR lodged for commission of offences u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. - Magistrate directed the police to register the case and investigate it - meanwhile, the appellant filed a complaint against the complainant and his partner u/s 138 of the NI Act and Section 420 I.P.C - Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons against the complainant - Cognizance of a Magistrate - HELD THAT:- The expression `cognizance' is not defined in the Code but is a word of indefinite import. As observed by this Court in Ajit Kumar Palit Vs. State of West Bengal [1962 (11) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT], the word `cognizance' has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. It merely means--become aware of and when used with reference to a Court or Judge, to take notice of judicially.
In S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd. & Ors.[2008 (1) TMI 618 - SUPREME COURT], speaking through C.K. Thakker, J., while considering the ambit and scope of the phrase `taking cognizance' u/s 190 of the Code, has highlighted some of the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Abani Kumar Banerjee[1950 (5) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], which were approved by this Court in R. R. Chari Vs. State of U.P.[1951 (3) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT].
It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order, the High Court has itself observed that no material had been placed before it, which, in fact, led the learned Judge to assume that the prosecution has produced evidence in support of the complaint. It is, thus, manifest that in the absence of material stated to have been filed alongwith the chargesheet, the High Court did not get an opportunity to apply its mind as to whether on the basis of the material before the Magistrate, a prima facie case had been made out against the accused-appellant. Under these circumstances, we feel that it may not be proper to express any opinion on the merits of the case against the appellant based on the documents placed before us by learned counsel for the State, save and except noting that the cheque in question, i.e. the `valuable security' does not form part of this set of documents.
It appears from the report that the stand of the complainant that a report regarding misplacing of the cheque and its user by the appellant had been lodged with the police was found to be incorrect. Nonetheless, after further investigations the police finally filed the chargesheet against the appellant.
We are convinced that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition. In our opinion, in order to arrive at a conclusion, whether or not the appellant had made out a case for quashing of the chargesheet against him, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the material which was placed before the Magistrate. For dismissal of the petition, the High court had to record a finding that the uncontroverted allegations, as made, establish a prima facie case against the appellant.
Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (9) TMI 996
... ...
... ... ..... ons 30 and 31 of the said Act, the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction and also can decide on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. This is similar to the provisions under Section 16 of the Act, whereby the arbitral tribunal can decide on its jurisdiction as also on the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. 25. In the light of the discussions above-mentioned, we are convinced that there is a charter party agreement existing between the parties and, that as per the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, the High Court as well as the trial court were fully justified in allowing the application preferred by the respondent and accordingly, impugned order must be affirmed. 26. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and there is no infirmity in the impugned order in the same for which we can interfere. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (9) TMI 995
... ...
... ... ..... ch a shortlist of candidates 10 to 12 times the number of advertised posts is drawn up for the Main examination. It is nobody s case that the results of the main examination are somehow affected in that process. Further still, this Court is unable to understand the apprehension of the UPSC that by disclosing the working of the scaling methodology for the preliminary examination, merit can get compromised and candidates with less merit would be selected. The whole purpose of having three levels of examination i.e. preliminary examination, main examination and then interview, is to ensure that only meritorious candidates are selected for government service. We are of the view that the apprehension expressed by the UPSC is not well-founded. 20. We find no merit in this appeal and affirm the impugned order dated 17th April 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. The stay order granted by this Court on 21st May 2007 is stand vacated. 21. The appeal and application are dismissed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 994
... ...
... ... ..... public interest not to permit the respondent to continue with such a misleading claim, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the respondent. Applying the test laid down in para 24 (vii) of the decision of the Apex Court in Colgate Palmolive case, it is clear that when public interest is involved, the question of allowing the wrong to continue on the ground that it can be adequately compensated in terms of money, does not arise. 75. Therefore, in the result, all the applications are allowed to a limited extent, restraining the respondent from using the words "ONLY" and "FIRST" in the offending advertisement, in a manner sending a message as though the respondent's product is either the only one containing all 3 ingredients or the first to provide all round protection. However it is made clear that the observations and findings recorded here are only prima facie and shall not prejudice the case of both parties in the final hearing of the suit.
-
2008 (9) TMI 993
... ...
... ... ..... an amount of ₹ 7,20,000/-, failing which action was proposed under RR Act. This Court is not able to comprehend as to how a notice demanding payment by the creditor to the debtor extends period of limitation as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Secondly, there is not even a whisper about issue of such notices in the counter affidavit filed by SFC. For the first time copy is produced before this Court without any evidence of service of such notices on petitioners. Therefore, importance cannot be attached to this aspect of the matter. SFC sanctioned loans to the borrower on 23.02.1988, and therefore, notice proposing to initiate action under Section 52A of RR Act issued on 08.08.2005. Hence recovery of debt is wholly time barred, and same cannot be recovered under said provision. 10. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petitions must succeed, and they are allowed accordingly. But, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (9) TMI 992
... ...
... ... ..... of cost to the distributors, etc. As such, the issue before the Larger Bench was as to whether the assessable values of such physician samples have to be arrived at in the terms of provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) i.e. on “comparable goods” basis or in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(b)(ii) i.e. on “cost basis”. The value of sample under Section 4(1)(a) was not admittedly available in the case of Blue Cross Laboratories (supra). This has been taken note of the Larger Bench in Para 8.2 of their judgment. 3. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case, we find no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.” 3. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided in the same respondents’ case, we find no merits in the Revenue’s appeal and reject the same. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (9) TMI 991
... ...
... ... ..... settled in law that though procedural compliance is required to be established in justification of an action, yet at the same time, mere form over substance cannot be preferred. 18. In light of the view that the Court has adopted, it has not been found necessary to enumerate and deal with various judgments cited by both the sides on merits of the controversy as to applicability or otherwise of provisions of the ULC Act. It will be open to the parties to raise all contentions that may be available on facts and in law before the Company Court. 19. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms and the impugned order dated 28th March, 2008 is quashed and set aside for recording a fresh decision de novo in accordance with law. Order passed in OJ.C.A. No.144 of 2008 with OJ.C.A. No.201 of 2008 with OJ.C.A. No.218 of 2008 In light of the view that the Court has taken in the appeals, these Civil Applications have been rendered infructuous and are rejected accordingly.
-
2008 (9) TMI 990
... ...
... ... ..... ort term loss of ₹ 1,26,93,209/- and long term capital loss of ₹ 84,94,251/-. In the circumstances this ground of appeal is allowed.” In view of that, it appears to us that the department has utterly failed to produce any evidence against the assessee and, therefore, after apprising of the said fact, the evidence and materials placed before the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Learned Tribunal, in our considered opinion, the Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion correctly. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order so passed by the learned Tribunal nor we find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal since the case of the department is wholly dependent upon the evidence and nothing else which also speaks against the department which would be evident from the noted paragraph hereinabove. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2008 (9) TMI 989
... ...
... ... ..... 143-144 of 1998 by order dated 20.07.1998, the Hon'ble Apex Court thought it fit not to go into the question involved by disturbing the beneficial order passed by this Court in favour of the persons concerned in view of the fact that the concerned persons already appeared before the enforcement authorities and were arrested by them. Therefore, this Court, in order to secure the ends of justice, is constrained to give the similar benefit to the petitioner who is also standing on the same footing as she has also appeared before the respondent, interrogated, arrested and remanded to judicial custody and as such continuation of further proceedings by subjecting the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in E.O.C.C.No.70 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby quashed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 988
... ...
... ... ..... Court by both parties, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the Company Law Board dated 5.5.2003 and the order of the High Court dated 16.6.2005 and remand the matter to the Board for reconsideration and fresh appropriate decision by taking note of all events which have taken place till now and the facts and circumstances as they exist today, in accordance with law. The appeals of both sides are allowed in part accordingly, leaving open all contentions. All pending applications stand disposed of. 7. The appellant is at liberty to raise the issue of salary and perquisites payable to the appellant from 1.10.1999, also before the Board. As the matter has been pending for a considerable time and the very pendency has led to the change of the circumstances, we request the Company Law Board to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Both the parties agree to appear before the Company Law Board without further notice on 13.10.2008 and take further order from the Board.
-
2008 (9) TMI 987
... ...
... ... ..... bringing any material on record which could substantiate that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to return correct income due to fraud or wilful neglect or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. This Court in CIT v. M.M. Rice Mills 2002 253 ITR 17 held as follows - "Merely because the addition had been made to income under the proviso to section 145(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 by adopting the view that the gross profit shown in the books of account was too low as there were defects in the method of accounting employed, it would not automatically lead to the conclusion that there was failure to return the correct income by means of fraud or gross or wilful neglect." (p. 17) 4. We find no error in the judgment of the Tribunal. The above quoted judgment applies squarely to the facts of this case. In this view of the matter, we hold that the questions proposed do not arise in this appeal and dismiss the same with, however, no order as to costs.
-
2008 (9) TMI 986
... ...
... ... ..... aw that the Commissioner of Income-tax must disclose to the assessee the ground on which it is proposed to revise the order of the Assessing Officer so as to enable the assessee to show cause and explain its stand. For this proposition, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bagsu Devi Bafna v. CIT 1966 62 ITR 506 and of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.K. Kabra ( supra). Thus the aforesaid argument of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax does not help the case of the Revenue. 14. Resultantly, the order of the Commissioner is set aside and the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) dated 30-3-2006 is restored. 15. Since the fact situation is identical in other two appeals, as noted by us earlier, our decision in ITA No. 579/Chandi/08 (supra) applies mutatis mutandis in other two appeals also. 16. In the final analysis, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 985
... ...
... ... ..... have been leveled, we are of the view that since this Court has already admitted this appeal and substantial questions of law have been framed, the informer has no role to play. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Consequently, his application for intervention is rejected. If he has any grievance, he has other avenues open to him under law. But, intervening in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is certainly not one of those avenues. The application is dismissed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 984
Maintainability of appeal - Dispute in the present case in between the revenue on the one side and M/s. Indian Rare Earth Ltd., a public sector undertaking wholly owned by the Government of India on the other side - Held that: - the matter was referred to the Committee on Disputes as to whether revenue should pursue this appeal or not, the said Committee has declined permission to CBEC to pursue this appeal before this Court.
Appeal cannot be continued and is dismissed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 983
... ...
... ... ..... ore the containers are returned to the petitioner, the petitioner shall give an indemnity bond in favour of the respondent No.3 as also produce an authority letter from CMA CGM SA, Marselles (France). The proceeds of the auction shall be defrayed in the following manner - a) First of all, the expenses incurred for the auction shall be taken care of; b) Thereafter, the customs duty payable on the goods shall be handed over to the respondent No.2; c) The balance shall be retained as demurrage / ground rent by the respondent No.3; If there is any excess in the amounts after making the aforesaid payments, the same shall be deposited in the form of a fixed deposit with the UCO Bank at the Delhi High Court premises. 3. In view of these directions, prayer (a) in the writ petition stands satisfied to the extent of all containers except the two mentioned above. The writ petition as regards the rest shall be pending only in respect of prayer (b). Renotify for directions on 16.02.2009.
-
2008 (9) TMI 982
... ...
... ... ..... 04 of 2008 involving the same question of law. 3. So far as Question No. B is concerned, this Court has admitted Tax Appeal No.779 of 2006 in assessee's own case involving the same substantial question of law. 4. So far as Question No C is concerned, this Court has refused to formulate the same substantial question of law involved in Tax Appeal No.780 of 2006 in the assessee's own case. 5. In view of these facts, this appeal is admitted in terms of the following substantial questions of law (1) “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting additions made on accounts of exemptions under section 10A”?” (2) “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made on accounts of R&D Expenses?” 6. Notice to other side. Additional paper book, if any, be filed within three months from today.
-
2008 (9) TMI 981
... ...
... ... ..... est payable only in the event the approval is declined by Director, T & CP or the educational trusts/institutions had not been able to obtain the same resulting in refunding the entire amount earlier deposited with the assessee as earnest money alongwith the interest, The assessee’s claim is thus admissible in the light of the provisions contained in section 145 of the Act and in the light of the fact that the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting. We, therefore, set aside the order of authorities below and hold that the assessee’s claim of deduction of interest amounting to ₹ 15,66,172 has actually been accrued or crystallized or ascertained in the present year under consideration, and it is thus to be allowed as deduction. The Assessing Officer shall allow the same and modify the assessment order accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 11. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 5-9-2008.
-
2008 (9) TMI 980
... ...
... ... ..... that the order was passed in a proceeding that was held on the basis of the Collector's order that was illegal and without jurisdiction. It is, therefore, quite wrong to say that it was not open to the land holders to question the validity of the reopening order since they had participated in the proceeding after its reopening. 9. As noted above, the order of the Additional Collector was also unsustainable for the additional reason that it was passed against a dead person. 10. For all these reasons we are satisfied that the judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the orders of the revenue authorities are unsustainable in law. The appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court and the revenue authorities are set aside. 11. This order, however, shall not stand in the way of the State Government in calling and examining the records of the case and on being satisfied that the materials so warrant to pass appropriate orders under Section 45-B of the Act.
........
|
