|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1806 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1812
... ...
... ... ..... Maggon had no authority to file the present suit and as a consequence such a suit was never properly instituted. 10. The importance of power of attorney without Notarization cannot be undermined but at the same time if such a defect is removed subsequently during the pendency of the suit and that too is followed by ratification of the authority of a person who has been authorized to institute the suit, it is not such a fatal infirmity that would hit at the maintainability of the suit itself. XXX XXX XXX 13. However, any provision which governs the procedure should not be subjected to strict legal interpretation but should be interpreted in a manner so as to meet the interests of justice and not scuttle them.... 14. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 9th December, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1811
... ...
... ... ..... bound to be within the constitutional parameters. 44. The matter may be viewed from the point of view of the 5th Respondent. True it is, his remaining in-charge of the post of the CEO was called in question before the High Court in a public interest litigation wherein a writ of quo warranto was issued. A judgment can be erroneous but when there is a direction for recovery of the honorarium, it indubitably creates a dent in the honour of a person. Honour once lost may be irredeemable or irresuscitable. Mr. Ramachandran has number of times submitted before us that because of the humiliation faced, the 5th Respondent decided not to continue in the post of the Chairman also. We have stated so because we strongly feel that a cautious approach is requisite while dealing with a writ of quo warranto. 45. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1810
... ...
... ... ..... t even been placed before the court while disposing of the application for grant of pardon and the manner in which the application had been dealt with as the Respondent No. 2 and the present Appellant had been playing hide and seek with the court and in spite of the fact that the court had asked the Appellant to disclose the criminal cases pending against the Respondent No. 2, no information was furnished to the court, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, substantial justice should not be defeated on mere technicalities. 28. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Before parting with the case, we would clarify that no observation made by us in this judgment, on factual issues should be taken as final by the court concerned. The court shall proceed in accordance with law.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1809
... ...
... ... ..... irs. There is no such averment in the petition of complaint. Merely because liability of the petitioners were sought to be discharged by issuance of the cheque, they cannot be held to be vicariously liable under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of such cheque. 11. I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted either under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act or under the principles of vicarious liability as laid down under section 141 of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the revisional application is allowed. The impugned order dated 17th July, 2012 is set aside. The proceedings in case No. 17483 of 2010 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta be quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned. Trial against other accused persons shall continue in accordance with law. Criminal section is directed to supply photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, to the petitioner on urgent basis.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1808
... ...
... ... ..... ught to be taken against them by way of show cause notice dated March 26, 2012 i.e. after lapse of five to six years by passing an impugned order on December 31, 2012. Therefore, keeping in view such an inordinate and unexplained delay by the respondent, it was considered by the Tribunal to impose a heavy monetary 'the direction regarding the making a combined public announcement to acquire shares was considered iniquitous in regard to the peculiarity of facts and circumstances of that case. The same is, therefore, not applicable in the present case where the proceedings have been promptly initiated and expeditiously completed by the respondent against the appellants. Moreover, there is no grievance raised by the present appellants as regards delay in concluding the proceedings in question against them. Therefore, the ratio of Sunil Khaitan is rendered inapplicable and does not hold good in the instant case. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1807
... ...
... ... ..... risdiction of the Court. Consequently if no relief can be granted in respect of the Delhi property, the question of entertaining the suit for the purpose of Gurgaon property alone does not arise. It will be, however, open to the Plaintiff to seek appropriate remedies in respect of the Gurgaon property in accordance with law in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. 21. As regards the shares and debentures, since they were in the joint names of the Plaintiff's late father and Defendant No. 2 and it has now come entirely to the share of Defendant No. 2, the question of seeking their partition during her life time does not arise. Therefore, none of the prayers in the suit can be entertained in law. The applications are accordingly allowed and the plaint is rejected with liberty to the Plaintiff to seek relief in respect of only the Gurgaon property in other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The interim order is vacated. All pending applications are disposed of.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1806
... ...
... ... ..... us wrong doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts. (Emphasis supplied) Conclusion 12. There is no merit in this petition. This petition amounts to gross abuse and misuse of process of law. The petitioners have succeeded in delaying the complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate for more than two years. The petition is consequently dismissed with cost of Rs. 30,000/-. The cost be paid by the petitioners to the respondent within four weeks. The ex-parte interim order dated 17th August, 2011 is vacated. The Metropolitan Magistrate shall resume the proceedings forthwith and shall endeavour to complete the trial within six months. The parties shall appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 18th November, 2013. Copy of this judgment be sent to learned counsels for both the parties.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1805
... ...
... ... ..... partment has filed the Misc. Applications to get the order of the Tribunal dated 11.07.2012 reviewed and no mistake has been pointed out in the order of the Tribunal dated 11.07.2012 in their Misc. Applications. Accordingly, the Ld. counsel for the assessees prayed to dismiss the Misc. Applications filed by the Revenue. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. At the outset, the Department has filed the Misc. Applications, as mentioned in the said applications is reproduced hereinabove, for fresh adjudication of the issue and to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT to decide the issue de novo. No mistake has been pointed out anywhere in the said applications. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the Misc. Applications filed in both the cases are rejected. 5. In the result, the M.A. Nos. 33 & 34(Asr)/2013 filed by the assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th November., 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1804
... ...
... ... ..... e application for setting aside the ex parte order is barred by time by about three and a half years for which no plausible explanation is there. However, without going into the question of delay, application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC is being disposed of on merits. All throughout applicant did not bother to find out as to what was happening in the suit. His this conduct itself clearly shows lack of bona fide on his part and shows that he was grossly negligent in pursuing the matter. In my view, he has failed to disclose 'sufficient cause' by which he was prevented from appearing in Court from 2000 to 2006 when ultimately decree was passed. We are unable to accept that the appellant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. We concur with the decision of the learned Single Judge and find the present appeal devoid of any merit. We, accordingly, dismiss the present appeal and the application with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1803
... ...
... ... ..... document was written, the document cannot be said to have been executed or signed on the date of manufacture of ink or pen. It is only in certain forensic cases, that such questions may become relevant. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Ishwar v. Suresh 2010 Crl. L.J. 1510 Karnataka. That, however, was in relation to a criminal trial, where the parameters are totally different. 6. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. If the petitioner is so advised, he can adduce such evidence, as is in his possession, to put forward his contention. 7. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to substantiate his plea, by raising the same in the written statement. 8. The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P. shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1802
... ...
... ... ..... tranger. In the present statutory dispensation, namely Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act, Specific Relief Act and Registration Act, the Court does not see any prohibition operating on the exercise of inherent power by the registering authority to cancel the sale deed earlier registered, which is likely to cause prejudice to the true owner as well as to the entire public at large..” Once incumbents who have proceeded to execute the sale deed have no authority to execute sale deed then rightful order has been passed and accordingly in the facts of the case, there is no occasion for this Court to take a different or contrary view as any interference would subscribe void transaction. In case petitioner feels that his substantive rights have been defeated, he can always file suit and the decision taken by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Moradabad shall abide by the outcome of the suit. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1801
... ...
... ... ..... specific item in the books of account and the assessee also clarified to the assessing officer in the original assessment. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the required details for completing the assessment. Therefore, the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Alappat Jewels (supra) may not be relevant to the facts of this case. Since there was no negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the particulars with regard to partners’ capital account and current account and other details, proviso to section 147 would be applicable to the facts of the present case and hence, reopening of assessment after expiry fo four years is not permissible. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1800
... ...
... ... ..... regard to the impugned orders." 12. We are of the opinion that the reasons given by learned Single Judge are cogent and germane inasmuch as the matter has a local flavour and the mine is situated in Maharashtra as well as the primary decision to allot the prospecting licence has been taken by the State of Maharashtra. 13. In any event, it is a settled principle that law laid down by a High Court is binding only within its territorial jurisdiction and judgments of other High Courts have only persuasive value. Further, if there is a contrary decision to the jurisdictional High Court, then only the jurisdictional High Court's judgment would be binding on its subordinate Courts, authorities or tribunals. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we are of the view that it is inconvenient for this Court to entertain the present writ and Bombay High Court is better equipped to deal with the present case. 15. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1799
... ...
... ... ..... o consideration the pay scale and periodical wage revision that has taken place and are applicable to the respective posts of the concerned workmen as per the notification issued by the Lt. Governor, Union Territory of Delhi and on the basis of similar notifications applicable for them. 84. Since I have allowed I.D. Nos. 97 to 99 of 1996, the Industrial Dispute case Nos. 107 and 108 of 1996 involving the workmen whose services were terminated during the pendency of petition before CGIT, must also be treated as permanent workmen at par with the concerned workmen involved in the instant case. The award for their reinstatement to their posts shall be passed with all consequential benefits with full back wages. 85. Accordingly, I allow the appeals of the concerned workmen in the above said terms. ORDER 86. As we have differed in our opinion, let the record of these appeals be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India for placing the matters before an appropriate Bench.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1798
... ...
... ... ..... by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Desika Charyulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 807. That being so, the trial Court has erred in law in deciding the issue that it has the jurisdiction in entertaining Civil Suit No. 193-A/2002 and passing the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2003 which has also been affirmed and confirmed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.11.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/2004. Needless to say, if the law permits the respondents/plaintiffs may approach the competent authority under the provisions of law. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, the second appeal is allowed. Consequently, judgment and decree dated 25.11.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Korba, in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/2004 and judgment and decree dated 30.12.2003 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Korba, in Civil Suit No. 193-A/2002, being in excess of its jurisdiction, are set aside. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1797
... ...
... ... ..... io comes to 5.88% and in the case of post-search period the GP ratio comes to 13.24% as compared to the GP ratio of 13.82% for the full year pertaining to last year. The learned CIT(A) observed that low GP ratio during pre-search period is covered by the disclosure of ₹ 2.10 crores made during the course of search and inspite of slight decline in the GP rate in the postsearch period compared to the last year, the CIT(A) found that proportionate increase in the cost of raw material was more than the proportionate increase in the sale price, and therefore, slight decline was justified. In the absence of any material being brought on record before us, to controvert the above findings of the learned CIT(A), we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1796
... ...
... ... ..... in the disposal of the suit, allowing the petition would not serve any other purpose and there is no scope for scientific investigation. 34. It is crystal clear that the plea of the petitioner is totally unsustainable, seeking an order under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC., to sent the document to decide the age of the ink, though the petitioner has not specifically stated anything to decide the age of the ink, a perusal of the petition would show that the relief sought for is the same. Hence, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the impugned order, so as to warrant any interference by this Court, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The Court below is directed to dispose the suit, solely on merits, uninfluenced by the findings of this Court, if any in this order. No costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1795
... ...
... ... ..... ar to go for liquidation. (iv) The State of Jharkhand shall pay the amount within a period of four months to those employees or their legal representatives of the employees who have received the amount in proportion from the State of Bihar. (v) The State of Bihar shall deduct the amount already paid by virtue of the order passed by this Court. However, the State of Jharkhand shall pay the entire amount of salary for the period as directed by us as it is clear from the record that it has not paid anything to the employees. (vi) Both the States shall compute the salary component after granting the benefit of pay revision which has been extended to other employees. (vii) The amount, as directed to be paid, shall be paid with 7.5% simple interest per annum. (viii) The claim for absorption stands closed. 53. The appeals stand disposed of with the above directions and, accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1794
... ...
... ... ..... on that even if it is not a business income, it has to be treated as 'income from other sources' is without any substance because, the facts of this case, recitals of the lease Deed, the schedule to the Lease Deed and the property which is leased makes it very clear that the income derived from them by way of rental income cannot be construed as 'income from other sources', but as the 'income from house property' only. As rightly pointed by the Tribunal, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of certain deductions in respect of rental income from house property that has not been extended by the assessing authority. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the assessing authority to give the benefit of said deductions after treating the income as 'income from house property'. The law on the point is well settled and therefore, no substantial question of law did arise for consideration in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1793
... ...
... ... ..... rred by limitation.” 34. Coming to the case at hand the appellant had filed the suit for eviction. The relief sought in the plaint was for delivery of possession. It was not a forum that lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass a decree for delivery of possession. It showed the intention of the plaintiff to act and to take back the possession. Under these circumstances, after the institution of the suit, the time for acquiring title by adverse possession has been arrested or remained in a state of suspension till the entire proceedings arising out of suit are terminated. Be it ingeminated that if by the date of present suit the defendant had already perfected title by adverse possession that would stand on a different footing. 35. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we permit the appellant-plaintiff to institute a suit as stated in paragraph 24 within a period of two months from today. 36. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
........
|
