|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 675 Records
-
2000 (11) TMI 1224 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed the essence of the matter. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order made by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the District Judge and the High Court and remit the matter to the Rent Controller for a fresh consideration from the stage when the matter was set down on 24.11.1992 and after notice to the parties proceed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1223 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nu's representation the Advisory Board did not examine his witness, the detention order stood vitiated. The same has to be quashed. To the same effect is the observation of this Court in the ease of Tankeshwar Singh Nimbekar v. Union of India, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1224/99, decided on 6th July, 2000. Since in this case petitioner had been denied his right to lead rebuttal evidence though witness was waiting outside and was willing to be examined, hence in these circumstances order of detention cannot stand. 6. For the reasons stated above, we allow this' petition by holding that detention order stood vitiated. We further direct the petitioner to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. We are not touching any other grounds pleaded by the petitioner on merits. 7. With these observations, the petition stands disposed but with no order as to costs. 8. The order be communicated to the petitioner through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1222 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... question has not been gone into by the tribunal. Learned Attorney General further submits that the point is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Solar Pesticides (Supra). In view of this the appellant is not entitled to the refund of the duty unless he proves that the burden has not been passed on to the consumer. As this point has not been decided by the tribunal, we allow the appeal and remit the matter to the tribunal to decide whether the burden of duty has not been passed on by the respondent to the consumer. The tribunal will be at liberty to remand the case to the Assistant Collector to decide this question. No costs. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1221 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is not disputed that the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code had been finally disposed of by the High Court on 7.1.1999. The new Section 362 of the Code which was drafted keeping in view the recommendations of the 41st Report of the Law Commission and the Joint Select Committees appointed for the purpose, has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment. The impugned orders of the High Court dated 30.4.1999 and 21.7.1999 which is not referable to any statutory provisions having been passed apparently in a review petition in a criminal case is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.4.1999 and 21.7.1999 are set aside restoring its original order dated 7.1.1999.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1220 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ejudiced in making an effective representation against his detention and thereby denying him right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in has enunciated this proposition on which we would place reliance. 15. We are, therefore, of the view that because of the variance in the detention order and the grounds of detention, the Impugned order of detention not only suffered from the vice of non-application of mind but also suffered on the ground that the detenu was prejudiced in making effective representation against his detention which infracts his right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 16. Taking any view of the matter the impugned detention order passed against said Shri Abhishek Sovern Kuntal, cannot be sustained in law. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned detention order. The detenu be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in some other offence. Rule made absolute.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1219 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is as under - “I have gone through the case records. There is considerable merit in the submissions made by the appellant. Reliance was placed by them specially on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Asmaco Plastic Industries (Supra). The finding of the Asstt. Commissioner when the goods were destroyed by fire before manufacturing operation started is factually incorrect as borne out by the order itself. In the instant case, it has been noted that manufacturing operations had already been commenced and destruction by fire took place at second stage namely Blow Room, whereas the first stage involved the blending of 2 different fibres. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside." 3. Since the issue involved in this case has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, I do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the department and in the result appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1218 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ju, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1217 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appellant as is being claimed. Doctrine of fairness and the duty to act fairly is a doctrine developed in the administrative law field to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. It is a principle of good conscience and equity since the law courts are to act fairly and reasonably in accordance with the law. The correspondence unmistakably divulge an obligation to pay certain compensation in the event there is a payment of certain levy by the appellant herein The appellant admittedly has not made the payment Doctrine of unreasonableness is opposed to doctrine of fairness and reasonableness will have its play, if allowed. The happening of an event has not taken place, can it be said irrespective of such an event reimbursement is to be allowed? The answer, however, cannot but be in the negative. In that view of the matter, we record our concurrence with the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1216 - CESTAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the goods were removed from the factory. The appellants have also shown and it has not been rebutted by the adjudicating authority that the entries of the production in the notebook are less than the entries of said production in the RG 1 register on some of the relevant dates." We note that ratio of this decision is also applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. On the question of the imposition of penalty, we note that a number of arguments were adduced before us, the first argument was that penalty under Section 11 AC cannot be imposed for the whole period as Section 11 AC was introduced in the statute book w.e.f. 28.9.1996. The 2nd argument was that penalty cannot be jointly imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q. We find force in the argument of the appellant. 15. In view of the above discussion we hold that no case for demand of duty, imposition of penalty and charging of interest has been made out. In this view of the matter the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1215 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner for upward revisions of punishment. Sri Virendra Nath So far as Sri Virendra Nath is concerned, learned senior counsel Dr. Rajeev Dhawan advanced elaborate arguments. The punishments imposed on the officer was one of the major punishments. On a consideration of the report of Justice Chinnappa Reddy, the report of the Inquiry Officer-Which are no doubt both adverse to the officer, and the recommendations of the UPSC which were favourable to the officer on both occasions and the order of the disciplinary authority which accepted the finding as to misconduct. We feel that the administrator's decision in the primary role is not violative of Wednesbury Rules. The punishment awarded was a major punishment. We, therefore, do not propose to refer the matter to the Vigilance Commissioner for further upward revision of the punishment. In the result, we do not purpose to pursue the matter further and we drop further proceedings. The Show Cause Notice is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1214 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to be a scrap and despite the fact that the claim did not fall u/s. 32, 37 or 28 of the Act ? (B) Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of ₹ 9,266/- as depreciation in respect of guest house despite the clear provision of section 37(4) of the Act ? (C) Whether the telephone equipment installed in the factory, mobile equipments etc. were eligible for investment allowance u/s. 32A of the Act ?
-
2000 (11) TMI 1213 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... na Reddy vs. State Dy. Superintendent of Police, 1992(4) SCC 45, P. Nallammal and anr. vs. State, 1999(6) SCC 559 . It does not mean that the court could not frame charge until the public servant fails to explain the excess or surplus pointed out to be the wealth or assets of the public servant concerned. This exercise can be completed only in the trial. K.Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991 (3) SCC 655; State of Maharashtra vs. Iswar Piraji Kalpatri 1996(1) SCC 542 In the latter decision the court held thus The opportunity which is to be afforded to the delinquent officer under Sec.5(1)(e) of the Act corresponding to Sec.13(1)(e) of 1988 Act of of satisfactorily explaining about his assets and resources is before the court when the trial commences, and not at an earlier stage. For the above reasons we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. We direct the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law and to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1212 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... oms, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), by a detailed order, has agreed with that reasoning. We are not inclined to take a different view. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1211 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ction placed by us is likely to have serious and adverse impact upon the finances and the economic viability of the scheme underlying tariff and minimum guarantee charges already determined. It is impossible for the Board, at this point of time to make up or change the pattern of tariff retrospectively to retrieve itself in this regard for the past period. The construction and execution of various developmental schemes and works are likely to suffer thereby a serious set back also. Keeping in view all these aspects we will be justified in declaring that the law declared in these cases shall be for future application only and not for the earlier period. For all the reasons stated above, the appeals are disposed of in the light of the directions and observations contained herein and the High Court shall restore the proceedings to its original file and dispose of the same in accordance with the directions contained in this judgment. The parties will bear their respective costs.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1210 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ase of the respondent assessees that it was open to the assessees to get the benefit of the gate pass which was endorsed after 1.4.1994 but before 30.6.1994. 10. The learned counsel for the department, however, urge that this very question has been referred by the Delhi Bench and Bombay Bench of the CEGAT to the jurisdictional High Courts. 11. The orders relied upon are only orders of the Tribunal. There is no decision of any other High Court taking a contrary view. Otherwise also, considering the fact that there is no dispute about the facts that the excise duty was paid on the inputs in question and the gate passes were not endorsed more than twice, and also considering smallness of the amounts involved in these applications (Rs. 32,753, Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 14,400 respectively), we do not think that it is necessary to issue any direction to the Tribunal to refer the question proposed for our decision. 12. The applications are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1209 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, the petitioner may be given liberty to challenge that order by availing appropriate legal remedy. In this respect, it is sufficient to mention that we have not made any adjudication on the legality of the order dated October 20, 2000 and it is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy against that order. 12.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be free to challenge the order dated October 20, 2000 by filing appeal under section 39(2) of the 1973 Act or availing other legal remedy. We also make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to pay the amount of tax assessed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar, and then file an application before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala, for revival of the appeal. 13. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of fee prescribed for urgent applications. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1208 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... azette, on August 17, 2000. 5.. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with the following clarifications and directions 1.. If the works contract awarded to the petitioner involves only earthwork, no tax need be deducted at source on the value of the earthwork. 2.. If the works contract awarded to the petitioner involves erection or construction of structures, the respondents are at liberty to deduct tax at source at the rate of 4 per cent. 3.. If the works contract awarded to the petitioner involves laying of roads, repairs to roads, canal digging, canal lining and repairs to canals, the respondents are at liberty to deduct tax at source at the rate of 2 per cent. 6.. It is, however, clarified that the amended rule should be applied only with effect from August 17, 2000 and as regards works carried out by the petitioner prior to that date would abide by the rates then prevailing. 7.. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1207 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the impugned proceedings in Session Case No.78 of 1993 are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
Held that:- It may be noticed that that conclusion in this case was reached by the Constitution Bench in the context of non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. While emphasising that it is imperative on the officer who is making search of a person to inform him of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, it was held that the recovery of the illicit article in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would render the recovery of illicit article suspect and use of such material would vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused. It is manifest that the recovery of illicit article in that case was by a competent officer but was in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In the instant case, however, the search and recovery were by an officer who was not empowered so to do. Further in Balbir Singhs case (1994 (3) TMI 173 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) this Court took the view that arrest and search in violation of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act being per se illegal would vitiate the trial. Therefore, the said conclusion cannot be called in aid to support the order under challenge. If the proceedings in the instant case are not quashed, the illegality will be perpetuated resulting in grave hardship to the appellant by making him to undergo the ordeal of trial which is vitiated by the illegality and which cannot result in conviction and sentence. It is, in our view, a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1206 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... goods under transportation like the provision enshrined in the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, still section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act is sufficient enough to indicate that the valuation is to be looked into while verifying the commodities with reference to the market value shown in the way bill or invoice, in order to judge if there was any act of evasion of tax from the side of the dealer. 6.. We, therefore, hold that the C.T.O. and the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes did not violate the provisions and the principles and rules laid down in the Act. The reference of the provision of rule 212(10) is a sheer mistake which, in any case, does not prejudice the findings made by the C.T.O. assessing the value of the goods and imposing penalty thereof. 7.. We, therefore find no merits in the application. It is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8.. This application is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1205 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er nor any examination has been made in the role of M/s. Jagdish and Company in respect of transactions in question which are alleged to have been taken place with the parties situated outside the Rajasthan where goods have been despatched. In the absence of enquiry into details it is not possible to reasonably come to any conclusion of fact about the true nature of transactions. 11.. In these circumstances this revision is allowed. The orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Rajasthan Tax Board are set aside and the case is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal before it against the assessment order afresh in accordance with law by reaching the appropriate finding of fact about the nature of transaction in pursuance of which goods in question moved from State of Rajasthan to other States by examining the material available on record and after hearing the parties. 12.. There shall no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
