Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws 2011 2011 2011 (1) Indian Laws - 2011 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Indian Laws - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 49 of 49 Records

• 2011 (1) TMI 1142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Extension of charge sheet - offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(b) and 22(c) of N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 - applicant filed an application for bail before the Special Judge on the ground that no chargesheet was filed till that date and also on the ground that the extension of time was granted on a false representation made by the respondent that the report of analysis of the substance sent to Directorate of Foods and Drugs Administration, Panaji ('DFDA' for short) was not received prior to filing of the application seeking extension of time – Held that:- order granting extension was patently illegal, the learned Special Judge shall pass the order granting bail releasing the applicant on bail on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 1082 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Term of service - Petitioner after completion of his five-year term was reappointed for another term of five years and was due to complete his second term of five years - response to an advertisement issued by the respondent regarding vacancies made application for the post of Judicial Member of the Tribunal, the post which he had held for nine and a half years at the time of making application refused for appointment for the vacancy, for the reason that the petitioner would complete his second term of 5 years as a Judicial Member of the Tribunal vide the impugned communication - main premise of the petitioner’s challenge of the said communication is that after completion of a tenure of 10 years, he is eligible to apply for the post afresh and must be considered on merits for his appointment as a Member of the Tribunal and should not be disqualified for appointment merely because he has completed 10 years in that office - Held that:- Plea that Section 10A, which restricts the total term of the Member of the Administrative Tribunal to ten years should be regarded as unconstitutional has also no substance at all. The age of retirement of a Government servant has been raised from 58 years to 60 years. Initially under the unamended provisions of the Act a retired Government servant had a tenure of only two years as a Member of the Tribunal and it was noticed that he was not able to contribute much while performing duties as a Member of the Tribunal. It was felt necessary that every Member of the Tribunal should have a tenure of five years. Therefore, the provisions relating to term of office incorporated in Section 8 of the Act were amended in the year 1987 and provision was made fixing term of office of Chairman, Vice-chairman and Members at five years period – statement made by learned senior counsel that we need to place our interpretation on the provisions of the Amended Act, which further principles of Judicial independence. Passage from the book, referred to by the learned senior counsel, pertains to the legal system in American Courts and Hybrid Tribunals, which has nothing to do with our legal system. Secondly, the statement relied on by the learned senior counsel is an extract from the book of a jurist, which has neither any persuasive value nor legal binding on us. If the suggestion made by an American author suits our legal system, it is for the Legislature to take note of it, “the doctrine of ‘independence of judiciary’ has nothing to do when the tenure is fixed by a statute”, no merit in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Petition dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 1036 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Pre-emptive purchase of land - absence of notice to show cause to the petitioner - violation of the provisions of section 269UC of the Act - dismissal of revision petition filled - lack of territorial jurisdiction - Held that:- The notification issued under the Income-tax Act vests jurisdiction on the Appropriate Authority at Delhi, to initiate action in respect of transactions relating to properties both at Delhi and Faridabad is also relevant. In such circumstances, merely because the property in question is situated at Faridabad would not disentitle the courts in Delhi to entertain a complaint pertaining to transfer of such a property. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is liable to be returned at the threshold, on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi is therefore rejected.

  With regard to the submission of the petitioner, that the objection with regard to jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi was not specifically dealt with either by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or by the appellate court, it is a settled law that if various grounds are taken by a party to assail an order and though each of them is not specifically dealt with in the judgment/order, but ultimately, the petition is dismissed or the relief is declined, it has to be assumed that the court duly considered the said pleas on the merits before declining the relief prayed for, even if not specifically elaborated in judgment/order. Merely because the said plea was not rejected in so many words in the operative para of the order dated December 7, 2002 cannot be a ground to entertain the present petition.

  Even otherwise, there is no illegality, infirmity or arbitrariness in the impugned order dated May 22, 2004, which would result in a serious miscarriage of justice, for this court to exercise its extraordinary powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 707 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Classification of exporters into ‘member exporters’ and ‘registered exporters - Writ petition against AEPC even if AEPC is not state - Held that:- when a private body exercises its public functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226.

  Regarding appeal before Company Law Board (CLB) - Held that:- the challenge to the validity of the Membership Regulations cannot be raised before the CLB in a petition before the CLB under Section 111 of the CA.

  Distinction between ‘Registered’ Exporters and ‘Member’ - Held that:- the Regulations of Membership made by the AEPC to the extent they are inconsistent with the Exim Policy are unconstitutional and ultra vires para 13.8 read with para 13.7 of the Exim Policy (effective from 1st April 1997 to 31st March 2002). They are accordingly, struck down as such. Any further amendments made to the AOA of the AEPC to bring about the classification of exporters into ‘member exporters’ and ‘registered exporters’, granting them different rights and privileges, will stand invalidated for the above reasons.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 375 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Limitation - Condonation of delay of 105 days - Misused - Filing Revision Petition against order dated 11th February, 2010 - The order dated 11th February, 2010 was passed by the learned ACMM, and the department was advised by its counsel immediately to assail the order, the department was supposed to take action within a reasonable time. Reasonable time in this case was before expiry of period of limitation for filing the revision petition - It was Standing Counsel of the department who advised her in this case and the department was very well aware that order has to be challenged within a time limit - The department in this case did not act and had to be reminded by the counsel twice - Find no force in this application for condonation of delay - The application is hereby dismissed, with the result, the Revision Petition also stands dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 374 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Detention of Goods - whether the appellants are entitled for the relief to quash the very first FIR registered by the CBI - The High Court mainly observed that in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties thereto, it will not be necessary for the parties to give effect to the earlier report and “if a new report is passed, the earlier report will not be given effect to - It is evident from the record that after registration of the first information report the CBI made detailed investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 25(1) read with Section 3 of the Act - On the facts and in the circumstances, it is not possible at this stage to quash the very first information report, since much water has flown after registration of the FIR by the CBI - It was a fair suggestion but the learned counsel for the appellants expressed her reservation as regards the very validity of said minutes and order of Director General and wanted the question to be left open - Appeals are dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 313 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Condonation of delay - It is true that technically the Division Bench was not bound to accept the period in respect of which delay in filing the review petition had been condoned by the learned single Judge, as a period in regard to which sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay, while considering the question of delay, in filing the writ appeal - Of course, the position would be different if the Division Bench had found that filing of the review petition was not for bona fide reasons or there were other reasons to suspect the bona fides of the appellant - Delay is condoned

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Withdrawal of suit – change of mind – appellant filed Suit No. 1301 of 1997 before the Court of Civil Judge - He filed an application to withdraw the suit – Subsequently, he changed his mind and before an order could be passed in the withdrawal application he filed an application praying for withdrawal of the earlier withdrawal application – Held that: - Courts are not to act upon the principle that every procedure is to be taken as prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the Code, but on the converse principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by the law. As a matter of general principle prohibition cannot be presumed - the application praying for withdrawal of the withdrawal application was maintainable

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 9 - SC ORDER
  

  Postal department has not spared even the Registrar of Supreme Court - Notice was issued as on 28-9-2010 by registered post with acknowledgement - But neither the AD card nor unserved cover has been received back till 5-1-2011

  ---

123