|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 380 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 409
... ...
... ... ..... gone missing from the registry of this Court. The Director - CBI, shall ensure that the enquiry is conducted expeditiously. 23. We decline to accede to the submission of the Plaintiffs that the trial of the suit should be allowed to proceed in the meantime. The basic question as to whether the suit continues to remain on the file of the Court would need a complete and thorough enquiry by the CBI. The judicial officer who was requested to conduct an enquiry by this Court has found in the course of his report that there is no trace of any record pertaining to the suit in the registry and that as a result he was unable to come to a conclusion as to whether the suit continues to remain pending on the file of the Court. In this view of the matter, unless the basic question as to whether the suit remains pending on the file of the Court is determined, it would be unsafe to proceed with the trial of the suit. We accordingly adjourn the hearing of these proceedings to 13 April 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 408
... ...
... ... ..... as Malhotra, Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 407
Murder - Offence punishable u/s 302 and 307 IPC - sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases - habitual criminal having more than three dozen cases involving serious offences - Bail Application - Pending proceeding of the trial, the High Court, granted conditional bail to the second Respondent - whether the High Court was justified in enlarging the second Respondent on bail after imposing certain conditions - Second Respondent/accused came from behind in the convoy of cars and immediately after crossing the Appellant's car and his supporters, the convoy of cars belonging to the second Respondent/accused suddenly stopped on the road without giving any signal and the second Respondent/accused came out of his vehicle armed with a gun along with his supporters who were also carrying guns and they started giving kick blows to one of the motorcycle riders who fell down and the pillion riders of the said motorcycles were fired upon by the second Respondent and his supporters from their respective guns and thereafter, they ran away from the place. Adbul Rehman-the pillion rider sustained serious fire arm injuries. When he was taken to the hospital at Varanasi, he succumbed to his injuries.
Second Respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases, that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial.
HELD THAT:- As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second Respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.
Taking note of all these aspects, particularly, the fact that the second Respondent was in jail since 24.08.2009, the trial has commenced by examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and the assurance by the State that trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable time and also of the fact that the High Court while granting bail has imposed several conditions for strict adherence during the period of bail, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court.
In fact, in the impugned order itself, the High Court has made it clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the trial Court will have liberty to take steps to send the applicant therein (respondent No. 2 herein) to jail again. In addition to the same, it is further made clear that if the Appellant receives any fresh threat from the second respondent or from his supporters, he is free to inform the trial Court and in such event the trial Court is free to take appropriate steps as observed by the High Court.
We also direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order without unnecessary adjournments.
With the above observation, finding no merit for interference with the order of the High Court, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 406
... ...
... ... ..... it is held that the chain between the ground of criminal activity alleged by the detaining authority for the purpose of detention is snapped if there is too long and unexplained delay between offending criminal act and order of detention. In the said case, the delay in passing the order of detention was from 1.6.2007 to 19.8.2008, which was not explained. Therefore this Court held that the order of detention passed after long lapse of time without explanation was to be quashed. 11. Here in this case no explanation is stated in the counter affidavit for the delay of 33 days in passing the order of detention from the date of arrest. 12. In the light of the above findings we hold that the petitioner has made out a case to quash the order of detention dated 24.8.2011. Consequently, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 24.8.2011 is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.
-
2012 (1) TMI 405
... ...
... ... ..... ased on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply,- (a) where the person in whose name the property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the family; or (b) where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity, and the property is held for the benefit of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity. 16. Thus, for the reason of vagueness in the pleadings and material facts not pleaded, being the additional reason, in addition to the reason given by the learned Single Judge with which we concur, we dismiss the appeal, but refrain from imposing cost.
-
2012 (1) TMI 404
... ...
... ... ..... dent/plaintiff, the trial Court in fact ought to have instead of deciding the issue on merits, disposed of the suit on account of bar to the taking of defence in the written statement of the property benami in view of Section 4(2) of the Act. 10. In view of the above, I hold that the defences which were taken by the appellant/defendant No. 1 in the two suits of the plaintiff/respondent being only a benamidar and not the real owner and that the father-late Sh. Jiven Singh was the owner of the property are hit by provision of Section 4(2) of the Act. Since the defence itself is barred, nothing else is required to be looked into. 11. No other issue was urged or pressed before me. 12. I, therefore, sustain the judgments and decrees for possession and injunction passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant No. 1. 13. In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial Court record be sent back.
-
2012 (1) TMI 403
... ...
... ... ..... #39;s de novo trial. By passage of time, it is expected that many of the witnesses may not be found due to change of address and various other reasons and few of them may not be in this world. Hence, any time limit to conclude the trial would not be pragmatic. 38. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the conviction and sentence of the Appellant is vitiated, not on merit but on the ground that his trial was not fair and just. 39. Appellant admittedly is a Pakistani, he has admitted this during the trial and in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have found his conviction and sentence illegal and the natural consequence of that would be his release from the prison but in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that he be deported to his country in accordance with law and till then he shall remain in jail custody. 40. In the result the appeal is allowed, Appellant's conviction and sentence is set aside with the direction aforesaid.
-
2012 (1) TMI 402
... ...
... ... ..... appellant’s licence. 4. The submission made on behalf of the State, that the Detention Order had been passed to prevent the appellant from committing any further offences in future of a similar kind, therefore, falls in the face of the fact that the appellant’s licence had been suspended. 5. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Kirpal, has drawn our attention to a judgment delivered by this Court on 25th August, 1994, in Crl.A.No.305 of 1994, where a similar point had been raised and on being satisfied, this Court had quashed the detention order. 6. Having regard to the above, and without going into other questions, we are satisfied that the impugned order of detention cannot stand and the same is, accordingly, quashed. 7. The detenue be set at liberty forthwith. SLP (Crl.)No. 175 of 2012 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the detention order passed in this Special Leave Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 401
... ...
... ... ..... Onkar Singh was killed, Tarawati and Chandra Bose were injured. The assailants tried to break open the door of the house but could not succeed, thus they fired from the ventilator and that is why Tarawati and Chandra Bose got injured. After commission of the offence a large number of persons gathered at the place of occurrence. The assailants ran away. The offence was committed at mid-night. Therefore, after reading the entire evidence collectively inference can safely be drawn that the assailants had an object to commit murder of persons on the victims' side and they participated in the crime. 13. Thus, the graveness of charges against the Appellants that they in concert with other accused to achieve a common object entered into the house of the complainant stood proved. 14. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the appeal. Facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant any interference in the matter. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 400
... ...
... ... ..... e Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988. Such being the position, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees’ contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act. We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.” In this view of the matter, we remit the matter back to Assessing Officer to verify the dates whether the payment is made within the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act or not. If the payment is made within the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then addition should be deleted in full. We order accordingly. This ground of appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Order is pronounced in open court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 399
... ...
... ... ..... 0/- and deposit of ₹ 7,44,600/- do suggest that amount received back in business were deposited. The assessee has not maintained the books of account. The onus was on the assessee to have explained the reasons for such withdrawal when there is cash in hand available. On the basis of human probability, we feel that the assessee has utilized the funds for business and withdrawal & deposit in bank account might have been arising from business. Looking to the peak cash balance, we feel that it will be fair and reasonable to estimate that deposit to the extent of ₹ 2 lakh may be out of funds used in business. 8. It is not a case where the entire deposit can be added as the assessee has made withdrawals from Bank. Hence the addition confirmed by ld. CIT (A) to the extent of ₹ 32,88,000/- is restricted to ₹ 2 lakh. In the result the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in open court on 31.01.2012
-
2012 (1) TMI 398
... ...
... ... ..... he appellant was unable to produce any document showing that the first respondent's husband borrowed from him an amount of ₹ 4 lakhs. From all these materials available on record, the first respondent could be able to rebut the presumption available to the appellant under Section 139 of the Act and the learned trial Court rightly held that the first respondent could be able to rebut the presumption as aforesaid available in favour of the appellant. Even if it is considered that from the facts and evidence two views are possible, this Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction against the judgment of acquittal shall not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. The judgment rendered by the learned trial Court being based on evidence and not being perverse shall not be interfered with in this appeal against acquittal. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is confirmed. The criminal appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 397
... ...
... ... ..... of set off of loss u/s 72A of the Act and in response to the same whether the assessee filed any reply to the Assessing Officer, the ld. A.R. for the assessee could not produce any evidence to show that such an enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer and the assessee had filed his reply to the same and after taking into consideration the same, the Assessing Officer had made the assessment. Further, from the assessment order also, we find that there is no discussion in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer regarding the set off of loss u/s 72A of the Act. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, there is no mistake in the order of the ld. CIT which calls for our interference. Accordingly, the same is confirmed and the 6 ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. No other point or was argued or pressed by the ld. A.R. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 11th January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 396
... ...
... ... ..... n the earlier year i.e., A.Y. 2005-06 in the assessee’s own case, so respectfully following the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 21.03.2011 in the assessee’s own case in ITA No.142/Bang/2010 for the A.Y. 2005-06, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department. 12. As regards to the cross objection by the assessee is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee was fair enough to admit that no specific relief is sought in the said cross objection, but only the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) has been supported. Since in the former part of this order, we have dismissed the appeal of the department and the view expressed by the ld. CIT(A) has been upheld, therefore this cross objection supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) becomes infructuous. We order accordingly. 13. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed and the cross objection by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 395
... ...
... ... ..... n the basis of circumstantial evidences.” 2. The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 200506. 3. As regards question (a) is concerned, it is an admitted fact that before the ITAT the Counsel for the Revenue stated that the said issue is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Mukesh R. Marolia in Income Tax Appeal No.456/2007 decided on 7th September, 2011. Since the decision of the ITAT is based on the concession made by the Counsel for the Revenue before the ITAT, question (a) cannot be entertained. The Revenue may adopt any other remedy available in law. 4. As regards question (b) is concerned, the Tribunal in paragraph6.4 of its order has recorded the reasons on the basis of which the ITAT has arrived at a conclusion that the gifts in question are genuine. Since the decision of the ITAT is based on finding of fact, in our opinion, question (b) cannot be entertained. 5. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 394
... ...
... ... ..... peals are kept pending before the Tribunal and nothing should be employed as detracting from jurisdiction of the Tribunal and in view of the aforesaid decision, it is abundantly clear that the appeals filed by the petitioners are still pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal and admittedly, in the aforesaid appeals, this question is also involved as to whether petitioners had clandestinely removed the goods in question or not. So, in my view, to avoid the contradictory decisions of the court, further proceedings of Complaint case no. 378C/2008 should be stayed till final decision of the reference application pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition stands disposed off with direction to the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna that he shall not pronounce judgment in Complaint case no. 378C/2008 till final decision of the reference pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in CEXA 3 of 2001.
-
2012 (1) TMI 393
... ...
... ... ..... mami Ltd. (supra), since the amendment has been made after filing of return, though with retrospective effect, interest under section 234C was not leviable on account of adjustment made in pursuance to the amendment. Therefore, assessee deserves to succeed on this count. 5.1. As regards the additional ground, the claim of assessee is that the capital gains arose in the last quarter and it had paid capital gains tax accordingly. Therefore, interest under section 234C apropos capital gain, could not be charged. This plea of assessee is in accordance with the proviso to section 234C(1)(b) of the Act. This aspect has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. 6. In view of above discussion, we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to compute the interest under section 234C of the Act in the light of aforementioned observations. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/ 01 /2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 392
... ...
... ... ..... . vs. ST Belton Tractors Ltd. wherein he observed that the principle of law evolved over 200 years ago (which finds itself reflected in Section 230 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872) was out of sync with modern business practices and was thus to be ignored. 10. But that is for the legislature to look into. 11. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree dated 05.02.2002 is set aside and the suit filed by the respondent against the appellants is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 12. Amount deposited by the appellants with the Registry of this Court, pursuant to interim orders passed, if not already returned to them, would be returned with interest accrued thereon and the cheque would be drawn in the name of appellant No. 1, alternatively, the Registry may endorse the FDR in the name of appellant No. 1 and this would absolve the Registry from the liability to pay half-and-half to the appellants. 13. Parties shall bear their own costs all throughout.
-
2012 (1) TMI 391
... ...
... ... ..... t dated 20 October 2011 is set aside. It is declared that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the Execution Application No.681 of 2011 as an Executing Court, it having the subject matter of the foreign award which is sought to be enforced, being the bank account in ICICI Bank within its territorial limits. The application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 at present pending before the Court in Thane District shall be returned by the competent Court in Thane District where it is pending for being re-presented to this Court and shall be disposed off by the learned single Judge of this Court along with the Execution Application No.681 of 2011. At this stage, after the judgment is pronounced, learned Counsel for Appellant requests for stay of the operation of this judgment in order to have further recourse in law. In the fact and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to accede to the request, as such the request is declined.
-
2012 (1) TMI 390
... ...
... ... ..... be submitted by the petitioner will have to decide the same in accordance with law, the directions issued by this Court and by taking into consideration of the report of the learned Commissioner. The second respondent will have to fix the salary on the facts available. (viii) The second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal from the petitioner. In the event of making any alterations, omissions or additions in the proposals to be submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has to issue a notice to the petitioner before doing so. Till the entire exercise is over, the interim arrangement entered into in pursuant to the orders of this Court will have to be continued by the petitioner. Since the arguments have been made and heard in full, the additional grounds raised by the petitioner in M.P. No. 7 of 2011 is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
........
|
