|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 906 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent then he shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent he shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate Court (AHD) and also to the Superintendent, C.B.I. and request that he may be permitted to be present through his counsel; (c) he will not dispute his identity as the accused in the case; (d) he shall surrender his Passport, if any, (if not already surrendered) and in case he is not a holder of the same he shall swear to an affidavit. If he has already surrendered before the designated court that fact should also be supported by an affidavit; (e) he shall not give for publicity his comments or opinion on the merits of the case pending against him, except when he is required to state it in the court concerned; (f) he shall desist from any euphoria demonstration for being bailed out in these cases. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 905 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut condoning the delay in filing the restoration application. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that application for restoration filed on behalf of the plaintiffs was dismissed earlier for non prosecution cannot be taken to be a ground for throwing out the restoration application as the High Court on the earlier occasion set aside order of the trial court whereby restoration application was dismissed for non prosecution and the said order attained finality. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that trial court had not acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and accordingly the High Court was not justified in interfering with its order in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and that passed by the trial court is restored. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 904 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the case has been finally settled by the Apex Court that in case the complaint is filed prior to expiry of 15 days of the notice, it cannot be said incompetent. The bar of expiry of 15 days is for taking cognizance. In the instant case, though complaint was filed on 26.6.1998 but cognizance was taken on 18.11.1998, which was much after 15 days from the date of notice i.e. 13.6.1998 and, therefore, no cognizance was taken within 15 days of the date of notice. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, wrongly allowed the revision. Thus, the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. 13. The revision is, accordingly, allowed. The order under revision dated 30.6.2000 passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 421 of 1998 is quashed and the order of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 8.10.1999 in criminal case No. 861 of 1998 is restored. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
-
2001 (12) TMI 903 - MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... oiding the aforesaid levy. There could, however, be no tie up between the sale of food and service of it on the table as is in the present case. This goes along with it. These two cannot be separated. Thereof, the same cannot be covered under Clause (b) of Section 33(i) of the Act. The practice followed by the respondent as well the others in trade in no way harms the competitor in general or customer in particular. It has, thus, been sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent did not indulge in unfair or restrictive trade practices as alleged. The observations of the Commission made in the order passed under Section 12A of the Act were without considering the evidence on both sides rendered during the course of trial, as such, the same cannot be considered to be conclusive. In our considered view, the Notice of Enquiry is not maintainable and the same deserves and is directed to be discharged with no order as to the costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
-
2001 (12) TMI 902 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent suggesting that he was Chairman and Director of the Company and was responsible for its business. The learned revisional Court merely relying upon on the plea and the documents of the respondent had discussed the various provisions of the Companies Act for making out a case of discharge in favour of the respondent without taking into consideration the law on this point that the question of designation was a disputed question of facts and its date was also suspicious. Similarly where if it is found that the resignation was manipulated and was not operation at the time of issuance of cheques then as a Chirman/Director the respondent prima facie was deemed to be incharge of and responssible for the conduct and business of the company. The Revisional Court is not expected to as a court of appeal and to discuss the evidence on merits at this preliminary stage of the trial. For the reasons stated hereinabove the revision succeeds and allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
2001 (12) TMI 901 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 CriLJ 527, and categories 1 and 3 which are material, are reproduced below "(1) Where the allegation made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) ..... (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused." 3. Obviously, present case is covered by the said categories and proceedings emanating from said FIR No. 15/2001 and summoning order qua the petitioners, thus, deserve to be quashed/set aside. 4. Consequently, while allowing the petition, aforesaid FIR No. 15/2001 under Section 498-A, IPC Bara Hindu Rao and proceedings emanating there from including summoning order qua the petitioner are quashed/set aside.
-
2001 (12) TMI 900 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... nt of parties and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. When the matter was taken up for consideration submission was made on behalf of the appellants to withdraw the appeals. That request was rejected by the High Court and the matter was disposed of on merits. Against that order these appeals have been filed. Now all that is urged before us is that the High Court ought to have acceded to the request of the appellants and allowed them to withdraw the appeals. We do not find that there is any impediment to allow the withdrawal of the appeals, particularly when the appellants are seeking withdrawal of the appeals without any conditions. This request made on behalf of the appellants would amount only to abandonment of their appeals before the High Court. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order made by the High Court and allow the appellants to withdraw their appeals and their appeals shall stand dismissed as withdrawn. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 899 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pplicant, and therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay on imposing certain conditions. 19. The Criminal application is allowed. The delay in filing the Criminal Revision application before the Court of Sessions is condoned, on condition that the applicant shall deposit all arrears of maintenance and shall continue to pay maintenance by depositing the same from January, 2002 on or before 10th of each month. On the applicant's failure to do so the application would stand rejected. The revision application be taken up by the Additional Sessions Judge, for hearing after there is compliance of the conditions imposed by this Court in allowing the application for condonation of delay. The applicant shall also pay ₹ 500/- as costs to the non-applicants by depositing the same in this Court. On such deposit being made, Ms. Udeshi, learned Counsel for the non-applicants, (Appointed), is entitled to withdraw the same. 20. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
-
2001 (12) TMI 898 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... shwar Prasad Singh, JJ. ORDER Dismissed the I.A. No. 2
-
2001 (12) TMI 897 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the petition with further direction to the petitioner to hand over all the books and records of the company. 3. We heard the authorised representatives appearing for the parties. We do not find any substantive allegation to be considered to be acts of mismanagement in the affairs of the company. If the company has not held the annual general meeting, it is for the appropriate authority to initiate action in terms of the provisions of the Act, especially in view of the allegation of the respondent that the books of account and the records of the company are with the petitioner. As far as the closure of bank accounts is concerned, we find from Annexure R-5 that the letter to the Bank of India seeking for closure of the account had been signed by the petitioner himself and as such the same cannot be held against the respondents. We find that the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of any relief in terms of Section 402 of the Act and as such we dismiss this petition.
-
2001 (12) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icle 139-A of the Constitution of India. Prothonotory and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court are directed to transmit the records in the above mentioned suits by special messenger to this court so as to reach the Registry here within ten days from today. The Bench Officer of the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, New Delhi is directed to forward the records relating to Company Petition No. 28 of 1992 to the Registry of this Court so as to reach the Registry within ten days from today. All the parties have undertaken before us that they will implement the terms of the "MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER" on or before 1.1.2002 and that no further time will be sought for in the matter. Clause (f) of the compromise relates to the operation of the bank accounts. That clause will come into force from today onwards. All the afore-mentioned suits and the company petition will be posted for final formal orders on 8.1.2002 at 10.30 a.m. along with these contempt proceedings.
-
2001 (12) TMI 895 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... gendum. This again, was not done. We therefore hold that the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty has not been established against M/s SRI and, therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable in this case. The duty demand is therefore barred by limitation. 5.4. Rule 209A has been invoked by the Commissioner to impose penalty on Sh. S. Krishna. Such a penalty could not have been imposed without a finding that S. Krishna had dealt with excisable goods with the knowledge or belief that such goods were liable to confiscation. In the absence of a finding to the said effect in the impugned order, the penalty has to be vacated. 6. In the light of our findings recorded above, the demand of duty against M/s SRI is set aside and consequently the penalty imposed on them under Rule 173Q is vacated. We also set aside the penalty imposed on S. Krishna. The impugned order stands set aside. The appeals are allowed. (Order already pronounced).
-
2001 (12) TMI 894 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nded that suit for declaration in any case would be maintainable whereby the plaintiff seeks that the cheques purported to be procured by the defendants are null and void. But in this connection Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act clearly provides the answer and negatives the arguments of the plaintiffs learned counsel. No suit for declaration is maintainable where an alternative relief is available. The cheques so given had been encashed and therefore alternative relief for recovery of the amount would be maintainable, if any. The simple suit for declaration as such consequently keeping in view the facts referred to above, will not be maintainable. 14. In fact of the aforesaid it is patent that in the present form the suit would be barred by law and therefore it is the plaintiff's plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, by way of abundant caution it is added that nothing said herein should be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.
-
2001 (12) TMI 893 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court reading the new discovery made by the police during investigation the persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. The quash the said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it. 12. Even otherwise the investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 on a previous occasion. This is clear from Section 173(8) of the Code. 13. Thus, from any standpoint the impugned order cannot be sustained. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
2001 (12) TMI 892 - CEGAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... of rubberized cotton fabrics/friction cloth. The learned Advocate for the appellants has also made submissions about the non-applicability of extended period of limitation and on the question of quantum of penalty. I find that the difference between the two learned Members of the referral bench was on the question of marketability of the product. No views were expressed by the learned Member (Judicial) on these aspects. Therefore, I refrain from considering these two aspects. I hold that the product in question is marketable as held by the learned Member (Technical). FINAL ORDER In view of the Majority Order, the appeal filed by M/s. Bata India Ltd. is rejected on merits by holding that double textured rubberised fabric/unvulcanised sandwitched fabric is an excisable product. However, as there is no Majority Order available on the point of limitation and on the applicability of Notification and on the quantum of penalty, the appeal is posted for-rehearing on the said issues.
-
2001 (12) TMI 891 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Limited Company has claimed depreciation on the written down value only in relation to assets received by it from the partnership firm. In view of the facts and evidence which have been appreciated by the Tribunal, no question of law, much less substantial question of law, can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 890 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... t is possible. We have heard the matter again. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. Let the Award given by the Arbitrator be made rule of the Court. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to recover the amount of customs duty which they paid on the goods of respondent kept in their warehouse, if permissible under law. With these direction this petition stands disposed of.
-
2001 (12) TMI 889 - KERLA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts its liability to pay the bill amounts. The direction by the Court is only to pay the admitted amounts. True, in some of the cases, there is a direction to pay interest. The correctness of the view is certainly open to the State to canvass in writ appeal and it is for the respective Bench to decide the issue and the larger Bench need not go into that issue. 20. While the reference was pending before the larger Bench, certain directions had been issued in the matter of payment of the bills on 'first done first paid' basis. It is made clear that those orders passed by the larger Bench will be a guideline for the State in the matter of payment of the bills and it will be open to the respective Benches to issue appropriate orders, if required and if found necessary, suitably varying those general directions in the interest of justice. Therefore, answering the reference as stated above, we send back all the cases to the respective Benches for final orders in the matter.
-
2001 (12) TMI 888 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... heir representative, who should be inducted into the board within 15 days from the date of receipt of the communication from the petitioners. As long as the Chawlas hold 12 per cent. shares in the company, they will have the right to appoint a nominee on the board of the company with remuneration as a whole-time director. In case the respondents choose the second option of purchasing the shares held by the petitioners, this Bench will appoint an independent valuer to determine the fair value of the shares and give consequential directions. 25. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with the liberty to the parties to apply for appointment of an independent valuer in case the respondents choose the option of purchasing the shares held by the Chawlas. The purchase could be either by the Ahujas or by the company. In the latter case, the company would be permitted to reduce the share capital to the extent of the face value of the shares in terms of Section 402 of the Act.
-
2001 (12) TMI 887 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t be treated to have been issued in exercise of the power conferred on the second respondent by Section 16-B of the APGST Act. In the case of Ramnarayan Shahu v. Commercial Tax Officer, 1990 (78) STC 97; 1990 (10) APSTJ 197, it was held that the directors of a private limited company cannot be proceeded against personally in recovery of the amounts due from the company except in the manner provided under Section 16-B of the APGST Act and the impugned notice issued to one of the directors was quashed." The provision which has been dealt with in the above decision is similar to Section 18 of the CST Act and the said judgment is applicable to the facts of the case in all force. In view of the above said principles of law and Section 18 of the CST Act the proceedings taken by the respondents against the petitioner is without jurisdiction and authority or law. So the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently W.P.M.P. No. 33128 of 2001 is closed.
........
|
