|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 681 Records
-
2009 (6) TMI 1028
... ...
... ... ..... and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent authorities while rejecting their representation for extension of time. We are also of the view that the members who are entitled to the benefit of the Scheme are entitled to claim only the amount of capital investment made by them within the stipulated time limit i.e. 30.11.2002. If any expenditure incurred by them subsequent to this time limit or investment made by them in such eligible project after 30.11.2002 cannot be considered as an eligible investment. The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to give effect to this judgment and order and decide each case as per the directions issued here in this judgment and raise the demand against the petitioners. The demand so raised will have to be paid by the members of the Association within six weeks from thereof. 131. Subject to the aforesaid directions and observations, all these petitions and/or applications made therein are accordingly disposed off.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1027
... ...
... ... ..... file requisite number of informal paper books printed, typewritten or cyclostyled, as the case may be, out of Court, within two months from this date. All formalities regarding preparation of paper books are dispensed with. The learned advocate for the appellant is, however, directed to incorporate all the relevant documents in the informal paper books. Liberty is granted to the parties to mention the appeal as and when the same becomes ready for hearing. After hearing Ms. Shampa Sarkar, learned advocate for the appellant and Dr. Chakraborty, learned senior advocate for the revenue and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we dispose of the application for stay by directing that any action taken in the meantime shall, however, abide by the result of this appeal. With this observation, the application for stay stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties concerned are to act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1026
... ...
... ... ..... f this petition and compensation was paid therein after loosing the legal battle all throughout. On the principle of equity and fairplay, there is no reason as to why the respondents should not give similar benefit to the petitioners and pay the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 20. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this petition will have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order passed under Section 48 (1) of the Act is quashed and set aside. The respondents are now directed to make the necessary payment to the petitioners as per the award dated 30th May, 1995 within a period of three months along with interest as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 requested that this order may be stayed for some time. The order passed by this Court is stayed for a period of two months from today.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1025
... ...
... ... ..... ntrary. In the case of State Through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru & Ors (2003) (6) Supreme Court Cases 641 , the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with this aspect. The Apex Court after considering the law on the subject observed that section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 starts with the words Nothing in this Code. The Apex Court specifically held that the inherent jurisdiction of this court can be exercised even when there is a bar under section 397 or some other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This objection raised by the first respondent is not at all tenable and the same deserves to be rejected. In the circumstances, the applicants must succeed. 20. Hence, I pass the following order 21. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). It is however, made clear that the benefit of this order will be available only to the applicant and the case against the other accused will proceed in accordance with law.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1024
... ...
... ... ..... cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the petitioner herein and the same was drawn on an account maintained by the wife of the petitioner in the name of the proprietary concern run by her. The judgments of the Apex court and this court cited above squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand. 11. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution of the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be maintained and the criminal proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 493/2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode against him has got to be quashed. It is made clear that the said criminal proceedings shall be quashed only so far as the petitioner is concerned. 12. In the result, this petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 493/2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode is quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1023
... ...
... ... ..... assing the Detention Order. The delay in passing the Detention Order and absence of any explanation for delay in passing the Detention Order, in our considered view, vitiates the Detention Order. Absence of explanation would amount no nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity on 01.06.2007 and compulsion for passing the Detention Order. That apart, no material was placed before the Detaining Authority to show that the Detenu was continuing with his prejudicial activities between 01.06.2007 till the date of his surrender i.e. on 15.07.2008. In such circumstances, the Detention, Order passed after a long lapse of time is liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of Detention in No. 66/BDFGISSV/2008, dated 19.08.2008, passed by the 1st respondent is quashed. The Detenu Kumar @ Minnal Kumar is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required, in accordance with law, in connection with any other case.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1022
Maintainability - Applications seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Ld. Magistrate - accused charged for the offence Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, r/w. 34 of I.P.C - Original Complainant is u/s 439(2) - HELD THAT:- I am therefore of the firm view that since Sections 437(5) and 439(2) Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked by the Applicants for reasons set out hereinabove, and since there is no other efficacious remedy available to the applicants under the Code, this Court can decide the applications by invoking its inherent jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the present case as set out earlier even the basic inquiry as to the nature of sickness is not made prior to grant of bail, more so when the Bail Application was also silent on this aspect. In the absence of any such material before the Ld. Magistrate, he ought not to have granted bail to the accused u/s 437(1) proviso only on the ground that admittedly the accused is under medical treatment. If such orders are allowed to be passed it would open flood gates for such applications to be made in serious non-bailable cases, only on the pretext of the accused being on medical treatment. In my view the Ld. Magistrate by granting bail to the accused only on the ground of him being under medical treatment at the hospital exhibits a totally casual approach in granting bail to an accused u/s 437(1) proviso which is a discretionary power required to be exercised in a judicial manner and on well settled judicial principles. Also in my view the Ld. Magistrate by not taking into account the relevant circumstances like the nature of sickness, the medical facilities/treatment available at the existing hospital, etc. and by granting bail only on the ground of the Respondent Accused taking medical treatment in hospital amounts to granting of bail u/s 437(1) proviso under irrelevant circumstances.
The Ld. Magistrate has not only failed to call for a medical report from the Hospital but has not even prima facie satisfied himself as regard the nature of the sickness, which ought to have been done by him at the threshold. The submissions now made as regard the contents of the discharge report of Lilavati Hospital is admittedly subsequent to the passing of the impugned order and, therefore, is of no assistance to the Respondent Accused as the said discharge report was not even in existence when the impugned order was passed.
Before I part with the Order I must record that several submissions were advanced before me by the parties to the Applications touching the merit of the matter. However, since the limited question before me pertains to the correctness or otherwise of the impugned Order, I have thought it fit to keep such submissions out of the purview of the foregoing discussion. The observations made in this Order are for the limited purpose of deciding the Applications for cancellation of bail. It is clarified that notwithstanding this Order the Respondent Accused may apply for regular bail before the appropriate Court. If such Application is made the same shall be decided on its own merits.
Thus, the order passed by the Ld. J.M.F.C., granting Bail to the Respondent Accused is perverse, arbitrary, without application of mind and displays incorrect exercise of discretion. Hence I pass the following order - The order of the Ld. J.M.F.C., granting bail to the Respondent Accused is hereby quashed and set aside.
Application allowed.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1021
... ...
... ... ..... avour can only be approximate and there cannot be in the very nature of things be precision and exactness in the manner. As long as the proportion fixed by the Tribunal is based upon the relevant material, it should not be disturbed and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed. 7. Assessee paid 60% on the receipts to Sitar which is far in excess of 1/3rd in case of overseas receipts and 25% in other of the receipts accrued to the assessee and, therefore, no income would be chargeable to tax in India. The assessee's appeals are, therefore allowed by respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the High Court. 8. Similar is the position and the facts being almost identical, therefore, following the aforesaid High Court decision, the appeals in the case of American Airlines Inc. in ITA Nos.2078/Del/2000 is also allowed and consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in ITA No.4693/Del/2000 is also deleted. 9. In the result, all the aforesaid six appeals are allowed.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1020
... ...
... ... ..... 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now received a notice with regard to the hearing of the appeal scheduled on 25.07.2009. 4. Learned Standing counsel Mr. P.R. Leslie Stephen takes notice on behalf of the first and second respondents. After hearing, particularly taking note of the fact that the statutory appeal has already been boarded for hearing in the last week of July, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that till such final orders are passed on Ext.P4 appeal, all further coercive proceedings stated as taken against the petitioner vide Ext.P7 and P8 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1019
... ...
... ... ..... ing the plot. Under such circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the Reference Court that an area admeasuring 344 sq. mtrs. has been lost by the claimants and, therefore, they are entitled for compensation on the ground of severance cannot be faulted with. 17 For the forgoing reasons, First Appeal No. 182 of 1996 fails and the same is hereby dismissed. First Appeal Nos.471, 678 and 679 of 1996 and 212 of 1997 are partly allowed. The market rate is hereby fixed at ₹ 500/- per sq. mtr., in place of ₹ 600/- per sq. mtr. and the impugned award stands modified to that extent only. The said market rate will be payable for the area admeasuring 7620 sq. mtrs. Save and except the market rate reduced from ₹ 600/- per sq. mtr. to ₹ 500/- per sq. mtr., the remaining part of the impugned award hereby stands confirmed. The payment of arrears, if not cleared earlier, is directed to be cleared within a period of three months from today. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1018
... ...
... ... ..... , which would justify an investigation of its affairs to ascertain the amounts siphoned off/the assets sold by petitioner as the management has been guilty of fraud, misfeasance and misconduct towards the company and towards its members and creditors. To do substantial justice between the parties and to regulate the conduct of the company's affairs in future and to set right the wrongs and take remedial action to prevent occurrence of wrongs in future, the petitioner is hereby directed to bring back the siphoned off amounts, to be ascertained by an investigating auditor to be appointed by the Company Law Board on giving a panel of such auditors along with their fee and consent to be mentioned to the Company Law Board within one month of receipt of this order, within three months of receipt of this order. 35. Company Petition No. 25 of 2004 is disposed of in the above terms. All interim orders stand vacated. All company applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1017
... ...
... ... ..... el recorded for and on behalf of the accused, when he is specifically authorised for the purpose and in appropriate cases. If after considering all the aspects of the case court holds that the personal attendance of the accused is not essential, the court can dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and the plea of the counsel can be CRMC 1820/09recorded and on the basis of such plea, the court can either convict the accused or proceed to have the trial." In such circumstances, dismissal of the petition on the ground that exemption cannot be granted in a warrant trial is not correct. But Annexure-1 affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate does not satisfy the necessary conditions to exercise the discretion in his favour. In such circumstances, petitioner is granted liberty to move the Magistrate for exemption by a proper application, in which case Magistrate has to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Petition is disposed accordingly.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1015
... ...
... ... ..... 301 I.T.R. 191. 2. So far question iii(a) and (b) are concerned, the same is covered by the judgment delivered by this Court on 30th June, 2009 in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Kisanveer Satara Sakar Karkhana Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.930 of 2008. 3. In this view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1014
... ...
... ... ..... f the Board wherein the Income-tax Officer in the case of consumer co-operative store had disallowed the claim of deduction on account of rebate allowed on the purchases made by the members of the store. 2. The Board in consultation with the Department of Community Development and Co-operation has decided that rebate or bonus (which is in the nature of deferred discount) passed on by the consumer cooperative stores to their members on the value of the purchases made by them during a year should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income of such a society. " 5. Mr.Gupta, in this appeal tried to draw a distinction on facts which have no role to play to take different view. He could not take his submissions to its logical end. The above CBDT circular will be very much applicable to the case in hand and the issue raised. 6. In the above view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1013
... ...
... ... ..... ount to denial of justice. 5. The CIT (A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that no confirmation letter was filed from M/s. Chanakya Finvest Pvt. Ltd. for which the credit was appearing in the books of account of the assessee. Learned counsel pleaded that the CIT (A) has not appreciated the other evidences filed, hence the issue may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh after providing opportunity to Assessing Officer. Learned DR was not having any serious objection on this proposition. 6. After hearing both the sides, we set aside the issue raised in the additional ground regarding the addition of ₹ 9 lacs to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on the 8th day of June 2009 after the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1012
... ...
... ... ..... appeal against the above order. The ld. Counsel for the appellants is correct in his submission that Rule 5 is not applicable when the change in parameters results in reduction in the ACP (in the present case, there is no dispute that there was a change in “d” and “I” and that the capacity was less than actual production of 1996-97), in the light of the Larger Bench decision in Sawanamal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2001 (127) ELT 46 (Tri.LB) followed by the Tribunal in Rajnish Steel Industries Vs. CCE, Rajkot 2002 (149) ELT 348 (Tri.Mumbai) holding Rule 5 will apply only in cases where there is no change in the annual capacity of production, or the annual capacity of production is increased due to change in machinery of production and that Rule 5 will have no application when the change in machinery leads reduction in the ACP. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (6) TMI 1011
... ...
... ... ..... to decide the question as to the admissibility of the documents objected to by a party when the objection is raised. He ought not to mark them tentatively and reserve the question of the admissibility for arguments at the final stage. If the Judge tentatively marks the documents, the High Court will set aside the order in revision. 35. In the light of the clear language of Order 13 Rules 3 and 6 of the Code referred to supra, the order made by the learned Judge allowing the application I.A. No. 78 of 2008 also cannot be found fault. 36. Hence, viewed from any angle this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the common order under challenge in these C.R.Ps. i.e., I.A. No. 71 of 2008, I.A. No. 100 of 2008 and I.A. No. 78 of 2008 in O.S. No. 222 of 2007 aforesaid does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 37. Hence these C.R.Ps shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1010
... ...
... ... ..... n collusion with the respondents. I do not find any rebuttal to this contention except bald denial by the respondents, the petitioners have not even made a bald denial as they have chosen not to file any rejoinder to respondent No. 7's counter affidavit to the company petition containing these contentions. 28. In view of the foregoing C.P. No. 27 of 2007 is not found to be maintainable under Section 397/398 of the Act in terms of the petitioners, not having the requisite qualification under Section 399 of the Act besides the petitioners having come to the Company Law Board with unclean hands and making directorial complaints which cannot be entertained in the instant case. Even on merits no case has been made out of alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of respondent No. 1 company. 29. C.P. No. 27 of 2007 is hereby dismissed as being not maintainable. All company applications stand disposed of. All interim orders stand vacated. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1009
... ...
... ... ..... of the extra amount paid by them as early as 15.7.2004. There is nothing on record to show that this communication dated 30.6.2004 received by the revenue on 15.7.2004, was attended to and no communication was addressed to respondent, as to rejecting or allowing the refund claim. In absence of any such correspondence, it has to be held that the respondent had filed their refund claim for the excess amount paid by them as early as 15.7.2004. Hence, the refund claim cannot be considered as hit by time limit. 5.4 As regards the decision relied upon by the learned SDR on the case of GMMCO Ltd. (supra), I find that the facts in that case were totally different from the facts of the present case. 5.5 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I find that the impugned order is sustainable and I hold it so. The appeal filed by the revenue is rejected. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent herein, is nothing but points raised in support of the impugned order, is also disposed off.
-
2009 (6) TMI 1008
... ...
... ... ..... second defendant company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the suit amount claimed by the appellant/plaintiff because of the fact that the acts of misdeeds, omissions and commissions pointing out to the misdemeanour or malevolent conducts of the first respondent/first defendant, all these were of individual, independent and personal unauthorised wrongful acts of the said employee and in that view of the matter, the liability could not be tagged on to the second respondent/second defendant company on the footing of tortious liability to extend the vicarious liability of an employer and therefore, the appeal has no merits and resultantly, the same fails. 28.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.9100 of 1995 are affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this appeal. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.
........
|
