|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 887 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the time being registered as a representative Union under this Act. 10. 9-D. Application for registration.- Any Union which has for the whole of the period of at least three months during the period of six months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it so applies under this section a membership of not less than fifteen per cent of the total number of workmen employed in unit of an industry may apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar for registration as a Representative Union. 11. "9-F. Cancellation for registration.- The Registrar shall cancel the registration of a Union- (a) if, after holding such an inquiry, if any, as he deems fit he is satisfied- (i)... (ii)... (iii) that the registered Union is being conducted not bona fide in the interests of workmen but in the interest of employers to the prejudice of the interests of workmen; or (iv) .... (b) If its registration under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (Central Act XVI of 1926) is cancelled.
-
1999 (12) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sides we find it difficult to support the orders challenged before us. A Company can file a complaint only through human agency. The person who presented the complaint on behalf of the Company claimed that he is the authorised representative of the company. Prima facie, the trial court should have accepted it at the time when a complaint was presented. If it is a matter of evidence when the accused disputed the authority of the said individual to present the complaint, opportunity should have been given to the complainant to prove the same, but that opportunity need be given only when the trial commences. The dismissal of the complaint at the threshold on the premise that the individual has not produced certified copy of the resolution appears to be too hasty an action. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and direct the trial court to proceed with the trial and dispose it off in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 31.01.2000.
-
1999 (12) TMI 885 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution interfere with the order under appeal inasmuch as an order as to wrongful investigation will certainly put a person to jeopardy when there is no justification to do so. 17. In the result, we think that the order made by the High Court has got to be set aside, but this order will not preclude the parties concerned on finding appropriate material to place the same before any authorised agency to register the case and investigate the matter and, in the event there is any inaction on their part, may seek relief in an appropriate court. 18. Subject to what is stated by us, we set aside the order made by the High Court and allow these appeals. 19. In the view we have of the matter, we do not think that the appeal filed by the other side can be allowed. Special leave Petition (C) No. 12834 of 1998 preferred by Shri Arun Kumar Agarwal shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 884 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Appellant and without giving any reason has dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal and also the High Court have failed to appreciate that production of a photocopy was not sufficient to prove that the driver had a valid licence when that fact was challenged by the Appellant and genuineness of the photocopy was not admitted by it. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the High Court in F.A.O. No. 2368 of 1998 deserves to be set aside. We accordingly allow this appeal and remit the matter back to the High Court for deciding the said appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
-
1999 (12) TMI 883 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... hote. According to the Assessing Officer, this expenditure did not in any way further the assessee's business. The Assessing Officer accordingly held the same to be disallowable. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) restricted the disallowance to ₹ 30,500/- out of total disallowance of ₹ 80,880/-. 26. As regards the deletion of the addition of ₹ 53,380/- relating to advertisement expenses, we have gone through the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and do not find any reason to interfere with his findings on this aspect. Out of a total disallowance of ₹ 80,880/-, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has restricted the disallowance to ₹ 30,500/-. Finding no fault with this decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we affirm his decision. Revenue fails on this Ground of appeal. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 31st Day of May, 2011.
-
1999 (12) TMI 882 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... therefore, the petitioner, as an alternate Director, was not liable to be prosecuted for the contravention of Section 73(2A) and (3) of the Companies Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner ought not to have been made accused in the first instance and having done so the Magistrate ought not to have issued process against him. 7. Surely the Registrar of Companies was in a position to ascertain the above facts from his own office records before filing the complaint and thus avoid unnecessary harassment of citizens. A Public Officer like Registrar of Companies should have acted with greater sense of responsibility. This is also a clear example of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process mechanically for the asking without applying his mind to the facts of the case and the provisions of law which has resulted in wrong prosecution of a citizen. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the petition.
-
1999 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not have the right to vote in the meetings of the municipality. It is contended that inasmuch as the nominated members do not have the right to vote in the meetings of the municipality, they should not be counted as part of the total number of the members of the municipality, two third of whose vote in favour is requisite for the passage of the motion of no-confidence. We find it difficult to accept this submission, given the plain words of the provisions quoted above. That nominated members may not vote does not imply that they cease to be members of the Municipality or that their number should be ignored in determining whether the President has lost the confidence of two-third of the members. So calculated, the vote of confidence against the President had not been carried as required. 7. The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed in terms of the prayer (a) thereof, 8. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 880 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... b work done inclusive of commission cannot be ignored. 9. The decision in Pink Star's case (supra) relied upon by the assessee is admittedly not directly on the issue involved in the case of the assessee before us. In that case, the issue was whether the profits of the business have to be reduced by 90 per cent of gross labour charges or by 90 per cent of net labour charges received by the assessee. On the basis of facts in that case, it was held by the Tribunal that since the income from labour charges was nil, no reduction will take place. Before us the issue is whether the gross labour charges inclusive of commission received by the assessee would form part of total turnover of the assessee's business. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, it is obvious that none of the decisions relied upon by the assessee renders assistance to it. We, therefore, uphold the orders of the revenue authorities and reject the appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 879 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... even for the assessment year 1987-88, the Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the gross profit rate to only 14% as against 35% worked out by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the seized material. The assessee disclosed gross profit of ₹ 4,97,806 on a turnover of ₹ 61,34,260, which works out to 8.1%. As the books were examined at the stage of the original assessment and the gross profit rate disclosed was accepted, we are of the view that the reopening of the assessment on the basis of material relating to a far removed assessment year like the assessment year 1987-88 constitutes a mere change of opinion and not a valid basis for the reopening of the assessment under the provisions of section 147(a). In this view of the matter, we have to set aside the orders of the revenue authorities. In the view we have taken, we need not go into the question of the correctness of the gross profit rate sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) at 14%. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 878 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ain facts (on record) were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, especially when the Department had only one day to prepare for the case? c) Whether the Tribunal was right in ignoring the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in Gopal Films Vs. DCIT (1999) 237 ITR 655 to the effect that an appeal filed in order to obtain relief under the KVSS should not be encouraged? d) Whether the Tribunal was right in permitting the assessee to withdraw the appeal preferred when the order rejecting the Miscellaneous Petition had not become final? 2. Question regarding condonation of delay is a question of fact and does not give rise to any question of law. So far as the applicability of the judgement of this Court reported in 237 ITR 655 (Gopal Films Vs. DCIT) is concerned, the same would arise from the main order of the passed in the appeal on merit against which no appeal has been preferred. 3. A Substantial question of law does not arise from the order under appeal. Dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 877 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rovisions relating to reservations. The resistance of the creamy layer to get out of the lists is as bad as the clamour for entry into the quota system of various castes whose social status does not conform to the law decided by this Court. We earnestly hope that Constitutional provisions will not be converted into citadels for unjustified patronage. 97. Krishna Iyer, J. warned in Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India (1981)ILLJ209SC ...to politicise this provision (i.e., Article 16(4) for communal support and Party ends is to subvert the solemn undertaking of Article 16(1). 98 . The IAs 35, 36 in W.P. 930/1990 are disposed of accordingly. W.P.(C) Nos. 699/95 and 727/95 are allowed to the extent indicated above. As 8 and 9 in W.P.(C) No. 699/1995 also stand disposed of. However, the suo moto contempt case started earlier shall be listed after a period of three months. 99. We thank the learned Amicus Curiae Sri Gopal Subramaniam for his valuable assistance.
-
1999 (12) TMI 876 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... f 1999 stand dismissed. The respondents will file their replies to the application C. A. No. 237 of 1999 by January 20, 2000, and rejoinder, if any will be filed by February 5, 2000, and the application will be heard on February 15, 2000 at 2.30 p.m. 40. Before parting with this order, we would also like to mention that, after the conclusion of the hearing, both the sides expressed their desire to provide us with written submissions and accordingly they did so. Since we found some additional arguments/citations in these submissions, we have neither considered them in this order nor taken them on record for the reason that the other side did not have the benefit to react on the written submissions. 41. After the conclusion of the hearing, we advised both the sides to explore the possibility of resolving the disputes amicably and intimate the results of the same by December 15, 1999. Since no feedback has come from the parties by December 15, 1999, we are releasing this order.
-
1999 (12) TMI 875 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... e provisions of the memorandum of association. Since this is a matter of fact as to whether there is violation of the provisions of memorandum of association or not, the same does not call for any investigation. Another allegation relating to the prayer for investigation is that substantial amount of money has been siphoned of by the 2nd respondent for his personal use. In the absence of any particulars to substantiate this allegation, we are not taking cognisance of the same. Accordingly, the prayer for investigation into the affairs of the company is rejected. In regard to the contempt application filed by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent for not having given inspection in spite of the directions by this Bench, we have already ordered him to pay a sum of ₹ 2,000 to the Legal Aid of Delhi High Court which he had already done and as such no further order is called for on this application. 13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost.
-
1999 (12) TMI 874 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... y within 30 days from the date of this order and the company will transfer 14 per cent shares to each of the petitioners within 30 days thereafter. In addition, we also give the option to the petitioners, who are in minority, to go out of the company by selling their shares to the respondents/company on a valuation to be made by an independent valuer. This option should also be exercised within 30 days from the date of this order. Both the options are independent of each other and the petitioners are at liberty to choose either both or one of them. Once the petitioners exercise their option, the same will be binding on the company and the respondents. Once the petitioners exercise either or both the options, the directions contained in para. 7 above will lapse. For the purposes of appointment of a valuer, the parties may approach us with an application. 9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. Liberty to apply is given to both the parties.
-
1999 (12) TMI 873 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a probate granted, it can be revoked as provided under Sec. 263 of the Act in any one of the cases mentioned therein. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Sub Court and the High Court regarding the caveat able interest will come in the petitioner's way in seeking revocation of the grant of probate. It is needless to say that the findings regarding thecaveat able interest of the petitioner have a limit- ed effect and are relevant only to the extent of granting of probate. But they cannot deprive his right, if he has any, to invoke Sec. 263 of the Act it is up to the petitioner to satisfy the Court." 12. It will also be relevant to mention that despite several; opportuni-ties granted for the filing of the original will dated 1.10.1987, this document has not seen the light of day. The application is, therefore, dismissed and since it is vexatious and calculated to cause delay it is dismissed with exemplary cost of ₹ 5000/-.
-
1999 (12) TMI 872 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tended that the appellant has not paid any licence fee as per the terms of the additional licence granted in his favour. It has been stated that in case the appeals are allowed the appellant-defendant be directed to pay all the arrears of the licence fee. We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondents. 9. Under the circumstances, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the orders impugned. The appellant-defendant is permitted to amend the written statement to the extent of incorporating the plea of his entitlement to the benefit of Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 only subject to his paying all the arrears on account of licence fee and costs assessed at ₹ 3,000 within a period of one month from the date the parties appear in the Trial Court. The payment and receipt of the arrears of licence fee shall be without A prejudice to the rights of the parties which may be adjudicated by the trial court. Costs of the appeals are made easy.
-
1999 (12) TMI 871 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... l be given 15 days notice for all board meetings together with agenda and she will have the right to participate in all meetings ; 6. The first petitioner will continue to enjoy the same salary and perquisites that she was getting before the dispute started till the shares held by her group are purchased by the respondents. In the same way, the fourth petitioner whose services were terminated will be eligible to draw the same amount of salary and other perquisites which she was getting during the employment, till the shares are purchased by the respondents. The arrears of salary and other perquisites from the date of her termination till date will be paid by the company within a month from the date of receipt of this order. The parties will appear before us on January 7, 2000, at 2.30 p.m. to suggest a mutually acceptable valuer to determine the fair value of shares and we shall pass an order appointing the valuer and giving appropriate directions in regard to the valuation.
-
1999 (12) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings, one wonders what is there further to proceed against them in criminal proceedings. Thus, in view of the facts that the petitioners have been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the very basis of the complaint does not exist and the petitioner's prosecution on the same set of facts and evidence cannot be sustained. That being so, there is no prospect of the cases ending in conviction and the valuable time of the trial court would be wasted for holding the trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce its conclusion on a future date. In this view of the matter, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue and thereby forcing the petitioners to face the ordeal of a trial would be an abuse of the process of law. 8. For the forgoing reasons, the petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings emanating from the complaints filed by the respondent are quashed qua the petitioners. Petitioners' bail bonds are discharged.
-
1999 (12) TMI 869 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... em for procuring the orders and not in respect of any publicity, advertisement, etc. The expenditure being in the nature of services rendered for effecting sales could not be considered as pertaining to advertisement, publicity and sales promotion. The decision relied on by learned standing counsel for the department in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT 1992 193 ITR 582 (Kar), has no application to the facts of the present case as in that case samples were given free by the drug manufacturer which could obviously be for promotion of the sales and not in respect of the sales which are also effected. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not (sic) justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the commission and brokerage paid by the assessee to the indentors from the purview of disallowance envisaged under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act. The ITRC stands disposed of with the above observations.
-
1999 (12) TMI 868 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ties concerned to agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial forum delivers a judgment, files review petition, appeal etc. it gives an impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary interest which is uncalled for. This act of the State has only resulted in waste of time and money of all concerned. o p /o p In the light of the view taken by us, the civil appeals and W.P. (C) No. 191/99 are allowed to the extent mentioned above. W.P.(C) No. 4128/98 pending on the file of Delhi High Court which has been registered here as TC (C) No. 56/99 is withdrawn to the file of this Court and the same is dismissed. The respondent (Delhi Administration) shall pay costs in all the above matters. o p /o p T.C.NO. 56/99 dismissed. o p /o p
........
|
