|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 665 Records
-
2008 (11) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of 2000. By our separate judgment today in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000 we have set aside the order of CESTAT and remitted the matter to it to be dealt with afresh. The decision in the said case shall apply to the facts of the present case. 2. The appeal will be heard afresh by the appropriate bench of CESTAT. 3. Since the matter is pending for long, we request CESTAT to dispose of the appeal as early as possible preferably by the end of February, 2009. 4. The appeal is allowed.
-
2008 (11) TMI 748 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... s cleared in the guise of waste? As regards the first question, the matters are squarely covered in favour of Department in the case of Union of India & Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others, reported in 2008 (13) SCALE 233. Hence, the first question is answered in favour of the Revenue. The second question arises on pure finding of fact. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Department’s Civil Appeals are partly allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (11) TMI 747 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anation, the Assessing Officer was fully satisfied with the same and accordingly, she framed the assessment on 10-3-2003. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal held that the invocation of section 263 was not tenable in law. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner was set-aside. We see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. It may also be noted that in similar situations, orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 have been set-aside by the Tribunal and upheld by this Court in the cases of CIT v. Vikram Aditya & Associates (P.) Ltd. 2006 287 ITR 268 1 and CIT v. Prudent Advisory Services (P.) Ltd. IT Appeal No. 170 of 2007, dated 28-2-2007 . The Special Leave Petition filed against the letter order has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC No. 13518/2007 by virtue of the order dated 15-1-2008. 2. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (11) TMI 746 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n proceedings taken during the continuance of a complaint filed under Sections 415 and 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said decision, it was held that merely because arbitration proceedings have been undertaken, the criminal proceedings could not be thwarted. On behalf of respondent No. 2, the submissions which had been urged before the High Court, were reiterated, which, however, appears to be unacceptable having regard to the decision cited by Mr. Adhyaru. We are also of the view that there can be no bar to the simultaneous continuance of a criminal proceeding and a civil proceeding if the two arise from separate causes of action. The decision in Trisuns Chemical Industry's case (supra) appears to squarely cover this case as well. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the complaint before the learned IInd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to be proceeded with in accordance with law.
-
2008 (11) TMI 745 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the wife was entitled to medical expenses which order was slightly modified by the High Court upholding her right to get medical reimbursement from her husband. We see no infirmity in the decision or reasoning of the Courts below which calls for our interference in exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal in our view, therefore, has no substance and must be dismissed. 32. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs. 33. The learned Counsel for the appellant- husband at this stage prayed for installments or extension of time to make payment as per the order of the High Court. In our opinion, the prayer is reasonable. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if we grant some time to the appellant-husband to pay the amount. Let the said amount be paid by the husband latest by December 31, 2008. 34. Ordered accordingly.
-
2008 (11) TMI 744 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... omissory note, it is for the plaintiff to establish his case that the promissory note, out of which the amount is due, is executed by the respondent/defendant. The defendant need not take any steps to disprove the case of the plaintiff. In my view, no useful purpose would be served by sending the pronote to ascertain the age of the ink. As rightly held by this Court earlier, in the judgment cited supra, sending a document to an expert to ascertain the age of the ink would only create more confusion. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no liberty was obtained when the earlier application filed for the very same relief was withdrawn by the defendant. 9. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.
-
2008 (11) TMI 743 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rdly be stated that the ownership rights would include the right of further transfers. The agreement shows the implicit stamp of the approval of defendants 1 and 2 in obtaining the permission of the Society for such further development as per the sanctioned plans. It grants interest in the suit plot of land to the plaintiff. Hence the Development Agreement even at the instance of the developer, depending upon the nature of the agreement as in this case, would be specifically enforceable unless only if it falls within the mischief of Section 14(1). 46. The plaintiff has made out a clear prima facie case for grant of the relief of injunction against creation of further 3rd party rights. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (b). 47. The defendants 1 and 2 shall not create any third party rights in respect of the suit plot of land or in any manner deal with, transfer or surrender the T.D.R. obtained by the plaintiff for development of the suit property.
-
2008 (11) TMI 742 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI BENCH
... ...
... ... ..... Hence, I hereby allow the application directing the company to advertise in the news papers and other modes with the consent of the secured creditors so as to give wide publicity to secure the best price for sale of property of the company in an open auction and order accordingly. The respondents/petitioners can also participate in auction. If for any reason the open auction is not held and could not secure best price, the applicant can call for sealed tenders and the sealed tenders should be opened in the presence of the petitioner and secured creditors and the bid of the highest bidder of the property has to be considered. All the sale transactions shall be transparent and all the norms should be followed without failure. The petitioners are also advised to co-operate with the company in their own interest and in the interest of the company and other shareholders. With the above directions C.A. No. 4 of 2008 is disposed of. Post the matter on December 2, 2008, at 2.30 p.m.
-
2008 (11) TMI 741 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f. 16. That apart, such direction was issued without appreciation of the rival contentions particularly, without deciding the entitlement of the company as to the right to have a sale deed in respect of such property in the wake of the objections raised by the Department of Industries and Commerce. Therefore, on this ground also the direction in question is unsustainable. 17. For the reasons stated above, the portion of the order under appeal whereby a direction has been issued to the appellant department to assign the land situate in Plot No. 2, in Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Instronics Estates, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41 measuring an extent of 0.75 Acres to M/s. Sears Electronics Limited, is set aside. However, it is made clear that this order shall not stand in the way of the Official Liquidator to workout the remedy in respect of the land in question in accordance with law. The Original Side Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2008 (11) TMI 740 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the order is in operation and we do not think it appropriate in the present case to make any variation. 19. We dispose of the appeals with the following directions (1) The investigation shall be completed within two months unless there is some practical difficulty in completing the same within that period. (2) The appellants shall, as and when required by the investigating agency, appear before the investigating officer and shall cooperate in the investigation. (3) If any document is asked for the same shall be supplied unless the appellants are not in possession of the documents. (4) In case the investigating officer feels that the non-production of documents as called for has any relevance, that can certainly be taken note of while submitting the final form or the charge sheet as the case may be. Needless to say that this order shall be operative till the charge sheet or the final form as the case may be is filed before the concerned court. 20. The appeals are disposed of.
-
2008 (11) TMI 739 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... em as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious 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 the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.
-
2008 (11) TMI 738 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ise tenable and legal, the obligation on the part of the petitioner, as a co-surety, was guided by Sections 146 and 147 of the Act, which have already been extracted in the preceding paragraphs. Admittedly, there is no contract to the contrary and at the most, the petitioner was liable to share the whole debt equally along with other five sureties. There was absolutely no basis for the 1st respondent to proceed only against the petitioner, for the entire amount. 21. Further, the executing Court did not follow the procedure prescribed under various Rules of Order XXI C.P.C., in the context of directing detention of the petitioner. None of the steps contemplated under Order XXI, C.P.C., before the detention of a judgment debtor can be ordered was followed. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the executing Court cannot be sustained in law. 22. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (11) TMI 737 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 7; 1,68,09,722 on account of alleged payment of lease rent has rightly been disallowed by the revenue authorities. We accordingly confirm the disallowance. 78. The learned Counsel for the assessee has pleaded before us that as a result of decision of the revenue authorities and confirmation by the Tribunal about the plant and machinery not having actually been sold, the assessee should be allowed to adjust the block of assets according to the view expressed by the revenue authorities. 79. In our considered view, the issue requires consideration at the level of the assessing officer. We accordingly restore the claim made by the assessee in regard to the adjustment in the block of assets to the file of the assessing officer for the purposes of determination in accordance with law. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus partly allowed for statistical purposes. 80. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2008 (11) TMI 736 - SUPREME COURT
Recovery of unpaid Electricity dues from subsequent owner - High Court was of the view that the amounts said to be due by third respondent were secured by a bank guarantee furnished by the third respondent, and therefore there was no need to retain any amount from the purchasers of the sub-divided plots.
HELD THAT:- In this case, when the first respondent, who was the purchaser of a sub-divided plot, wanted a new electricity connection for its premises, the appellant informed the first respondent that such connection will be provided only if the electricity dues are paid pro-rata. They were justified in making the demand. Therefore, it cannot be said that the collection of sum from first respondent was illegal or unauthorized. It is relevant to note that when the said amount was demanded and paid, there was no injunction or stay restraining the appellant from demanding or receiving the dues.
Whether the supplier can recover the electricity dues from the purchaser of a sub-divided plot? - In this case, the first respondent had voluntarily paid the said amount to the appellant to obtain a fresh electricity connection. It cannot seek refund on the basis of any subsequent order of the Commission, in the absence of a specific direction for refund. The first respondent having paid the said amount in pursuance of its undertaking as a condition for obtaining fresh connection, is estopped from claiming the amount back, except in accordance with the terms subject to which the payment was made. The amount deposited by first respondent will however have to be refunded by the appellant, with appropriate interest, if the third respondent is ultimately found to be not liable in respect of the demand under the supplementary bills, or if third respondent actually clears the dues.
In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition of the first respondent.
-
2008 (11) TMI 735 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the adoption of Rajendra by Gomoti or the deed of gift executed by Gomoti in favour of Rajendra. We, thus, refrain from entering into those questions as the plaintiff has no right to dispute those facts and even if we hold against Rajendra, the plaintiff cannot get any relief (see Mohant Narayan Giri Guru Mohant Someswar Giri vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1977 SC 628) and our finding will not even be res judicata in a future suit if filed by those brother and sisters or the nephews and nieces of Jagannath against Rajendra. We, therefore, allow this appeal and dismiss the cross-objection with the finding that the Moni Devi was not the benamdar of Jagannath in respect of the suit property and that Sitaram was not adopted by Jagannath as his son and consequently, the plaintiff had failed to prove any right, title and interest in the suit property. The suit is, thus, dismissed in its entirety. In the facts and circumstances there will be however no order as to costs.
-
2008 (11) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ppears to us that only one car was sold, which one we do not know. 24. Be that as it may, for the reasons noted hereinabove we hold that the evidence on record establishes that the debit entries in Ex.P-13 pertaining to interest are random casting a serious doubt about their correctness. The basis of the suit is the debit entry in sum of ₹ 7,85,529/- evidenced by the fact that the suit seeks recovery of ₹ 7,84,415/- which is the sum reached by adjusting ₹ 1,114/-. The entry of ₹ 7,85,529/- is stated to be interest from 1.1.1999 to 5.12.2000. Entire loan of ₹ 25,00,000/- and interest thereon were recovered on 1.11.1999. The respondent therefore could not have charged interest after 1.11.1999. The last entry is highly tainted and has not been proved by the witness of the bank. 25. We allow the appeal. 26. Impugned judgment and decree dated 23.8.2007 against the appellant is set aside. Suit filed by the respondent against the appellant is dismissed.
-
2008 (11) TMI 733 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... sealed down to that extent. 15. On this aspect, the learned DR had no objection if the matter be sent back to the file of the Assessing Officer to ascertain the factual position. 16. After considering the plea of the assessee, we find that the same being a factual aspect requires verification. Since the same does not emerge from the orders of the lower authorities, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose to examine the above stated plea of the assessee and pass an appropriate order thereafter. The Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee necessary opportunity and after considering the assessee's submissions, an order in accordance with law shall be passed by him. 17. Thus, in this light, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 18. Resultantly, whereas the appeal in ITSS 02/Chandi/2007 is allowed, that in ITA No. 109/Chandi/2007 is partly allowed.
-
2008 (11) TMI 732 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e appeals with the following directions (1) The High Court shall decide the question relating to maintainability of the review petition and then proceed to deal with it, if it is found that the review petition is maintainable. (2) Further the order of this Court dated 18.9.2008 granting interim stay of the High Court's orders dated 18.3.2008 and 29.4.2008 shall remain operative till the Review Application no.42/08 in Writ Appeal no.1074/04 is decided. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the question of as to the maintainability or otherwise of the Review application. (3) It is open to the appellants to move the High Court to seek variation of the impugned order in Writ Petition 23914 of 2008 referred to above. (4) Let authorities make an effort to complete the departmental proceedings within three months. Needless to say the respondent shall cooperate in such completion. 10. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2008 (11) TMI 731 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... d of in terms of the order dated 3.10.2007 passed by this Court in Shri Sidhbali Steels Ltd. Vs. Secretary and Ors. - Civil Appeal No.4643 of 2007. It is directed that the aforementioned order dated 3.10.2007 shall govern this appeal also. With the aforementioned directions, the appeal is disposed of.
-
2008 (11) TMI 730 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case where the excise shops are settled in the midst of the year. It is true that proviso appended to Rule 24 provides that if any shop or a group of shops is settled in the midst of the year, the licence shall commence from the date of settlement of the shop or group of shops, in our view, the expression "date of settlement" is the date when the Excise Commissioner approves the highest bid accepted by the licencing authority. Seen thus, the demand dated 27th March, 2007 for payment of licence fee for the period from 5th June, 2006 to 5th July, 2006 cannot be said to be justified. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order dated 18th September, 2008 passed by the Commissioner of Excise, Bihar has to be set aside and is set aside and it is declared that the demand of licence fee for the period 5th June, 2006 to 5th July, 2006 from the petitioner is bad in law and cannot be enforced. 14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
........
|
