|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 891 Records
-
2010 (8) TMI 1182 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Division Bench has clearly erred in its consideration of the judgment in the Steel Authority of India Case. The first respondent cannot be held to be functioning under the authority of the Central Government. The State Government is therefore the appropriate Government for the respondent No. 1 for the purposes of ID Act and MRTU and PULP Act. The two Applications filed by respondent No. 2 will have to be held as maintainable under MRTU and PULP Act. The order of the Industrial Court holding them to be maintainable but dismissing them on merits is held to be correct. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Industrial Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, is restored. The Appeal No. 133/2002 filed by the 1st Respondent in the High Court shall stand dismissed. 65. Parties will bear their own costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1181 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e up further investigation of this case and entrust the same to a team of competent investigating officers constituting Special Investigation Team. Further investigation in this case need not necessarily be confined to the grey areas pointed out in this order and the C.I.D may also enlarge scope of investigation depending upon the material to be unearthed during further investigation. During the course of further investigation of this case, the C.I.D is at liberty to examine or if necessary to interrogate or to take into custody any person in T.T.D. connected with this offence irrespective of his/her status, in order to come to a logical conclusion touching core aspects of this case. The investigating officer shall file periodical monthly reports of the further investigation being conducted in this case, in this Court; and ultimately file additional final report before the Magistrate after conclusion of further investigation. 20. Post these petitions for report on 03.09.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1180 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Shri G.C. Gupta, who was nominated by the Hon'ble President, heard the parties on the above questions, and in his capacity as Third Member vide his order dt. 11th June, 2010, concurred with the view taken by the AM and held that subsidy amount received by the Assessee was a revenue receipt in the hands of the Assessee and accordingly decided the issue in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. As for the issue of expenditure of Rs. 7.83 crores being of revenue nature, the Third Member noted that there is no difference of opinion on this issue between the Vice President and the AM constituting the original Bench, since it was held by both of them that the expenditure of Rs. 7.83 crores incurred by the Assessee on rectification and improvement of power lines damaged due to cyclone out of capital subsidy, was of revenue nature. 29. Going by the majority opinion, we allow ground No. 4 of appeal of the Revenue. 30. In the result, Revenue's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1179 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... to the effect. The Learned Departmental Representative has not objected to the above submission of the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee. On principle we find that as per provisions of Section 43(6) of the Act only actual depreciation which has been allowed as deduction in computing the total income of the assessee can only be reduced to arrive at opening written down value in the immediately succeeding year. However, in the instant case we find that there is no dispute about the written down value of the car in respect of which depreciation was allowed to the assessee. The assessee in effect seeks a direction by the Tribunal for subsequent year. As the issue of subsequent year is not before us, in our considered opinion we cannot issue such a direction. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on this 06th day of August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1178 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... R Delay in filing process fee and spare copies for issuance of notice to the sole respondent is condoned. The office to check and proceed further with the matter.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1177 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt can issue Mandamus directing the authorities to act in contravention of the rules as it would amount to compelling the authorities to violate law. Such directions may result in destruction of rule of law. In the instant case, the impugned order of the High Court virtually compelled the State to give pay scales contrary to statutory rules under which pay scales of the employees are fixed. The decision of the Chief Engineer being contrary to ROPA Rules, 1998, cannot be enforced even if such a decision was taken under the directions of the Administrative Tribunal. The orders of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court suffer from incurable infirmities and are liable to be set aside. 27. For the reasons above, the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. However, the amounts if any paid to the respondents pursuant to the impugned orders shall not be recovered. 28. The appeal is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1176 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rantors or indemnifiers for payment of the amount due from the Company nor it is pleaded in the plaint that the respondents had undertaken to make payment on behalf of the Company. As stated above, no particulars of fraud are set out, presumably for the reason that the respondent No.4 himself was a functional Director of the Company responsible for the day-today affairs of the Company. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, it is the Company and the Company alone upon whom the liability can be fixed at all. 21. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge are set aside qua the appellants No.1 and 2. The appellants are granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for being tried in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 20.09.2010. 22. RFA 14/2010 and CM No.495/2010 stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1175 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... owed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. 10. In the case, the Defendants allegedly raised the construction during pendency of the suit, Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession against the Defendants. Apart from this, it is stated by the Plaintiff/Respondent that an undertaking was given by the Defendants in this regard, but in spite of this, construction was raised. However, all these facts are to be seen by the Trial Court in the trial. But from the perusal of amendment application, it appears the amendment was necessary for the just decision of this case. By inserting amendment, nature of the suit is not changed. On the contrary, relief 14(b) has become very specific by allowing such amendment. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warranting our interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This petition is found without merit and is dismissed with costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1174 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng that the assessee is carrying out activities incidental to the main objects of the Corporation for which it has been granted registration under Section 12AA? (ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that the assessee Trust is eligible or exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 notwithstanding that the dominant activities of the assessee are of business activities with profit motives and are not in the nature of charity? 3. Questions of law in other appeals are also identical. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not disputed that the above questions are covered by order passed today in ITA No. 563 of 2006 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula v. The Haryana Warehousing Corporation). Accordingly, the questions are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. The appeals are dismissed. 7. A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1173 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... there was 'deficiency in service' on the part of the appellants. 19. The said observations are opposite as compounding it is alleged is pursuant to a contract between the parties. In this connection it may be also noted that another associate of the petitioner-Mr. Rajesh Khanna had filed a similar petition before this Court being Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 507/2008. In this petition, one of the contentions raised was that there was a settlement or a Memorandum of Understanding and, therefore, the offence was compounded. This contention was rejected after observing that since the compromise has not adhered to by the petitioner therein, there was no question of the petition for quashing being entertained. 20. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Observations made above are for the disposal of the present petition and will not be construed as observations on merits, which are binding on the trial court.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1172 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ontroversy is covered by the decision rendered in ITA No. 439/2008 (Van Oord ACZ India (p) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) decided on 15th March, 2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the assessee has been allowed. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed and the order passed by the tribunal is set aside in terms of the order in ITA No. 439/2008. There shall be no order as to cost.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1171 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on whether by allowing the amendment, as prayed for by the appellant, the Court will allow material facts to be brought on record in the pending setting aside proceeding. 60. Judging the case from this angle, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice and considering the fairness of procedure, the Court should allow the appellant to bring those materials on record as those materials are not wholly irrelevant or they may have a bearing on the appellant's plea for setting aside the award. 61. Nothing said in this judgment will be construed as even remotely expressing any opinion on the legality of the award. That question will be decided by the Court where setting aside proceeding is pending. The proceeding for setting aside the award may be disposed of as early as possible, preferably within 4 months. 62. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeeds. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the court below is restored. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1170 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... irected to, upon being approached by such children, deal with them also on the same lines as discussed hereinabove. The counsel for the petitioners further states that out of the aforesaid number, about 400 are children with disabilities. He further points out the judgment dated 16th September, 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.6771/2008 titled Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group Vs. GNCTD wherein it was held “It is made clear that no disabled child shall be refused admission in any of the schools either run by the State Govt. or the local bodies”. The Deputy Director of Education states that such students shall also be dealt with in accordance with the said judgment of the Division Bench. I may also draw attention to the proviso to Section 3(2) of the RTE Act in this regard. 18. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1169 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... irected to, upon being approached by such children, deal with them also on the same lines as discussed hereinabove. The counsel for the petitioners further states that out of the aforesaid number, about 400 are children with disabilities. He further points out the judgment dated 16th September, 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.6771/2008 titled Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group Vs. GNCTD wherein it was held “It is made clear that no disabled child shall be refused admission in any of the schools either run by the State Govt. or the local bodies”. The Deputy Director of Education states that such students shall also be dealt with in accordance with the said judgment of the Division Bench. I may also draw attention to the proviso to Section 3(2) of the RTE Act in this regard. 18. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1168 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be true and is considered in the light of the documents contained in Annexure P1 (Colly), it could be arithmetically clear that Smt. Shakuntala had given birth to Rajni Kant, respondent No. 1 on 15.7.1940, i.e., even prior to her own birth in 1941. If all the said documents are accepted, they would simply lead not only to improbabilities and impossibilities but absurdity also. It is most unfortunate that none of the courts below had analysed documents in correct perspective. The live-in- relationship if continued for such a long time, cannot be termed in as "walk in and walk out" relationship and there is a presumption of marriage between them which the appellants failed to rebut. 23. In view of the above, the appeal does not present special facts and circumstances which may warrant further re-appreciation of the evidence as the appeal is based on totally unreliable/contradicting documents and not worth placing any reliance. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1167 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... based on pleadings in the complaint. Mr. Raichura contended that as per the settled law by this Court in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against company and directors also specific averment about the active role of directors in running the company has to be made, failing which the directors cannot be proceeded against. Same logic should apply even in the present case. We cannot agree. Firstly, the language of Section 34(2) of the Act substantially differs from the language of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Secondly, here we are dealing with the offence which has the direct impact on the public health. We, therefore, would choose not to interfere with the order of the High Court. It will be open for the directors to show to the Trial Court that they had nothing to do with the manufacture process and, therefore, they should not be held liable under Section 34(2) of the Act. 10. With these observations, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1166 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ted a single instance that the vehicle maintenance expenditure was not meant for the purpose of the business. As far as the question of personal use of scooters was concerned, a decision has already been taken to disallow and the motor car expense as per the above paragraph. Therefore, on the same reasons again the disallowance shall not be justifiable. With the result, the disallowance in respect of vehicle fuel and maintenance expenses is hereby directed to be deleted. Therefore, this ground is partly allowed. 7.1. The next ground is the disallowance in respect of Insurance expenses. The same has to be decided as per the above observation that in respect of the motor car upto the extent of 1/5th of the total claim has to be decided, however, the Insurance in respect of the other vehicles is to be fully allowed. Thus, this ground is also partly allowed. 8. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 31/08/2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1165 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cally sound and correct, it reached a different conclusion only because it thought that the word 'charges' had to be interpreted as 'tariff rates'. If that is found to be without basis or erroneous, and therefore ignored, the opinion of the Commission fully favours the appellant. 22. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in holding that the tariff rate in regard to none of the category of consumers can exceed 17% over the previous rates. We accept the explanation and interpretation of the appellant. The Commission has found that the increase in revenue, on an average, under the tariff notification dated 13.5.1996 was only 16.65% over the revenue calculated with reference to the earlier interim tariff rates. We therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 30.10.1998 and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court and uphold the validity of the Tariff notification dated 13.5.1996.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1164 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the strength of a disclosure statement of a co-accused, in the absence of any other independent incriminating evidence. The right of the police authorities, to interrogate the petitioner on the basis of the disclosure statement of Vipin Sharma, shall not stand whittled down for the purpose of carrying on the investigation, only because his custodial interrogation is not permitted. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer. 8. Needless to state that the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation and shall not hamper the investigation and nor shall he tamper with the evidence. 9. The petition is disposed of. DASTI.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1163 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... two courts are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, both the courts must possess identical jurisdiction. It is further to be seen that under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act the court restrains a party from instituting or prosecuting proceedings in a sub-ordinate court. It does not withdraw the proceeding which may be pending in a sub-ordinate court to itself for trial. Therefore, while considering the provision of Section 41(b) the question whether the Court which grants the injunction has power to try the suit in relation to which injunction is granted is not relevant. 20. To conclude, therefore, we hold that with reference to the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act the Small Causes Court constituted under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act is sub-ordinate to the Bombay High Court on its Original side. 21. As the question referred to us for decision has been answered, the papers be placed before the appropriate court for decision of the Appeals.
........
|
