|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 915 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1212 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to wait compulsorily and indefinitely for the appearance of the complainant. In such situation, the Magistrate may close the complaint, which would not amount to acquittal of the accused. Therefore, in this case, the learned Magistrate, by closing the complaint, has not committed any illegality. At the same time, this Court considers the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the representative of the complainant could not appear before the Court due to illness. 5. In the interests of justice that the complainant must be given a chance to put forth his case and he should not be stopped at the threshold, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode made in C.M.P. No. 2170 of 2010 dated 17.05.2010, dismissing the complaint is set aside. Therefore, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The complainant is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1211 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pplying the formula under subsection (3) of Section 80HHC, the expression profits of the business would need to be substituted by book profits. Our conclusion is that the acceptance of the submission would amount to rewriting a legislative provision which would not be permissible to the Court. 31. In the circumstances, while allowing the appeal, we answer the question of law by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the amount to be reduced under clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB in respect of the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed with reference to the net profits in the profit and loss account and not according to the profits of the business computed under the head of profits and gains of business or profession. The question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the aforesaid terms. The appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1210 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , Adv., Mr. Rohit Sharma, 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.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1209 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se of fear and the conduct of the prosecutrix cannot be held to be unnatural. 45. There is no dispute regarding the place of occurrence and the incident that occurred. The defence could not establish that it was a case of consent. FIR had been lodged most promptly. Appellant and other accused were arrested on the next day. The prosecutrix as well as the appellant and other accused were medically examined on the next day. The appellant or any other accused was not known to the prosecutrix. No reason could be there for which the prosecutrix would have enroped them falsely. Definitely, it could not be a case of consent by the prosecutrix, even if it is assumed that she was major. The discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix have to be ignored as explained hereinbefore. 46. There is no material on record on the basis of which, this Court may take a different view or conclusion from the courts below. We do not find any force in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1208 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he interference at the threshold quashing the FIR is to be exceptional and not like routine as ordered by the High Court in the present case. It is not a case where it can be said that the complaint did not disclose commission of an offence. The acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial. 14. In the light of the above principles and the materials placed by the prosecution, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR in Crime No. 288/2002- 03 of Excise and Prohibition Station, Hazurabad, Karimnagar District, accordingly the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case except holding that interference by the High Court at the threshold is not warranted. We further make it clear that it is for the prosecution to establish its charge beyond reasonable doubt. With these observations, the State appeal is allowed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1207 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as the High Court have not accepted the evidence regarding existence of motive as alleged by PW 1 in the first information report. In fact she herself in the course of her deposition denied the existence of such a motive. The High Court has agreed with the view of the trial court on this issue. It is well settled that in order to bring home the guilt of an accused, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive. The existence of motive is only one of the circumstances to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the evidence of the witnesses appears to be truthful and convincing, failure to prove the motive is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The law on this aspect is well settled. 20. In view of the above reasoning, we do not find any infirmity in law or otherwise in the judgment under appeal. The finding of guilty as well as the order of sentence also do not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1206 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ted the said addition observing that the liability to pay 20% of disputed interest to SEBI has been utilized during FY 2004-05 in view of SEBI Interest Liability Regularization Scheme, 2004. The CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Mills Co. Vs. CIT 3 (1980) Taxman 52 (SC) wherein it was held that interest payable on cess partakes the character of cess itself and is thus allowable on the basis of actual payment u/s 43B. 25. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) wherein he has rightly been deleted the addition by following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mahalaxmi Mills co. (supra). Therefore, we confirm the order of CIT(A) on this issue. 26. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1205 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ked upon by the public at large as a service cadre of high integrity and professional values. The Judges are expected to apply stringent social and moral values to their standard of living. It was expected of the appellant to disclose all true and correct information and documents in his power and possession before the Enquiry Officer. It was not required of him to with- hold relevant material and take such a defence which could not be substantiated during the course of departmental enquiry. Having failed to produce relevant documentary evidence as well as examine the witnesses, the appellant cannot argue that the Disciplinary Authority or the Courts have not appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse in any manner whatsoever. 12. For the reasons afore stated, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed however, without any order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1204 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the basis of that cheque. As far as civil liability of the contractor/Petitioner is concerned, it is not necessary to look into the same in present matter. Suit was filed in the year 2006 and the arbitrator was also appointed in 2008, therefore, civil liability of the parties against each other can be looked into the said litigation or arbitration proceedings. In the present matter, we have only to see whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out or not. The learned Revisional Court did not address to this question properly before rejecting revision application. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances, I find that no case to issue process under Section 138 was made out and, therefore, process issued by the trial Court is liable to be quashed. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to issue process under Section 138 is hereby quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1203 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... er would like to approach the High Court for appropriate orders. The special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed. SLP (C) ………....CC9128/2010 Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1202 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of appeal is allowed subject to final decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.” 9. We find that on the same issue on the identical facts the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) had given the same finding as quoted above in the Assessment Year 2003-04 and 2004- 05. The Revenue in those years had accepted the finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and had not filed appeal before the Tribunal against the finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The Learned Departmental Representative could not point out any distinguishing features in the above year under appeal. Therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 9th day of July-2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1201 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee would be in a position to furnish necessary details, if any opportunity is given to the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative also did not object to the proposal for providing another opportunity. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and remit the matter of claim of current repairs of ₹ 20,69,866/- to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to afford an opportunity to the assessee to explain its case and decide the issue in accordance with the law. 9. In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2002-03, 2003- 04 & 2006-07 are dismissed. The Appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2001-02, 2004-05 & 2005-06 and the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 are treated as partly allowed. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 is treated as allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 28th July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1200 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... impediment for the accused-respondent to file a complaint against PW.2 if he had stolen the cheques and handed over to the complainant. As could be seen from the records, earlier to this transaction some other similar cases were filed by the complainant against the respondent wherein decree in favour of the complainant was passed directing the respondent to make payment. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the respondent that there is no legally recoverable debt cannot be accepted. 7. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the trial Court is upheld while setting aside the order passed by the appellate Court. However, the order of imprisonment is set aside by directing the respondent to pay the fine amount as indicated in the order of the trial Court in each of the cases within three months from today failing which the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The order of the appellate court is modified while allowing the appeals in-part.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1199 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sult, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a comprehensive fresh representation including documents in support of their claim for exemption within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondent corporation shall fix a date for inspection of the premises and after inspection, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and then decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of which the personal hearing is afforded to the petitioner. The respondent while deciding the matter will also take note of the law laid down by this Court in the Judgment reported in 1993 (2) LW 100, referred supra. 11. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1198 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from acquisition. However, as the possession has not been taken, the interest of justice would be subserved if the appellants are given liberty to make representation to the State authorities under Section 48(1) of the Act for release of their land. We, accordingly, grant liberty to the appellants to make appropriate representation to the State Government and observe that if such representation is made by the appellants within two months from today, the State Government shall consider such representation in accordance with law and in conformity with the State policy for release of land under Section 48(1) without any discrimination within three months from receipt of such representation. 34. In the result, these appeals fail and are dismissed, subject to the liberty reserved to the appellants for making representations under Section 48(1) of the Act. 35. I.A. for impleadment is rejected and I.A. for discharge of Advocate - Mr. S.C. Birla is allowed. 36. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1197 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y presuming that neither of the claimants was dependent upon the deceased and the services rendered by her could be estimated as ₹ 1250/- per month. 62. In our view, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for reducing the amount of compensation are wholly untenable and the approach adopted by the High Court in dealing with the issue of payment of compensation to the appellants was ex facie erroneous and unjustified. 63. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment as also the award of the Tribunal are set aside and it is held that the appellants are entitled to compensation of ₹ 6 lacs. Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay the said amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing application under Section 166 of the Act till the date of payment. The needful shall be done within the period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The appellant shall get cost of ₹ 50,000/-.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1196 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... der Chaudhary,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 on the facts of this case.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1195 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the provision that prescribes retiring the persons from public employment in the State of Nagaland on completion of 35 years service from the date of joining or until attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, is arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - In Present case, On July 8, 2009 a Bill titled `The Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Bill, 2009' (`Amendment Bill') was introduced. By the said Bill the length of service of the State Government employees was proposed to be restricted to 35 years from the date of joining of service or till he/she attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. The State Legislature of Nagaland, on July 10, 2009 unanimously passed the Amendment Bill. Thus by Second Amendment Act, 2009, Section 3 of 1991 Act as amended by 1st Amendment Act, 2007, was substituted. On July 20, 2009, the State Government issued Office Memorandum (OM) requesting all departments to submit the list of employees, who had completed 35 years of service by October 31, 2009. The appellant-Association prayed that 2nd Amendment Act, 2009 be quashed to the extent it has introduced 35 years' service as one of the conditions for retirement of government employees and direction be issued to the State to superannuate its employees only on attaining the prescribed age of 60. The Association also prayed for quashing OM dated July 20, 2009.
HELD THAT:- Suffice it to say that alternative mode of retirement provided in the impugned provision is applicable to all State Government employees. There is no discrimination. The impugned provision prescribes two rules of retirement, one by reference to age and the other by reference to maximum length of service. The classification is founded on valid reason. Pertinently, no uniformity in length of service can be maintained if the retirement from public employment is on account of age since age of the government employees at the time of entry into service would not be same. Conversely, no uniformity in age could be possible if retirement rule prescribes maximum length of service. The age at the time of entry into service would always make such difference. In our view, challenge to the impugned provision based on the aforesaid ground must fail.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, we hold that a provision such as that at issue which prescribes retiring the persons from public employment in the State of Nagaland on completion of 35 years' service from the date of joining or until attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or irrationality and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1194 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... u, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... equences to respondent No. 2. We have already noted that the decision of the Selection Committee is rendered arbitrary due to non- observance of the stipulated criteria in the Policy Circular dated 4.9.2003 and the Public Notice dated 12.2.2004. We have also noted that it is not a case where the selection is vitiated by proved mala fides; nor any allegations of undue favour being shown to respondent No. 2 have been made. Even leaving aside the loss which would be incurred by respondent No. 2 it would not be possible for this Court to ignore the far reaching consequences of cancellation of the retail outlet in the small State of Tripura where such facilities are not in abundance. Therefore, keeping in view the over all public interest, we decline to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the selection made in favour of respondent No. 2. 37. Both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
........
|
