|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 631 Records
-
2000 (8) TMI 1129 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tter for remitting back to the authorities below for exercising such discretion, as the matter relates to an assessment year 1979-80, we deem it appropriate to consider the case on merits, instead of remitting the matter to the authorities. Considering the claim of the petitioner that it was under a bona fide impression that the turnover relating to the matches is not liable to tax at multi-point, the levy of maximum penalty at five times the tax due may not be appropriate. Further, taking into account all attendant facts and circumstances of the case we deem it proper and reasonable to reduce the penalty to three times the tax due in the place of five times the tax due that was levied by the assessing officer, which was confirmed by the appellate authorities. 13. Under the above circumstances, the order under revision is accordingly modified, reducing the penalty from five times the tax due to three times the tax due. The revision is accordingly by allowed in part. No costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1128 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... clared that the petitioner is entitled to normal increment from 1st June, 1985 till the date of his retirement. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector by ignoring his adverse entries as aforesaid as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to release normal and regular increments of the petitioner from 1st June, 1985 and to pay all the difference of arrears of such increments within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents are also directed to fix the salary of the petitioner after releasing regular and normal increments from 1st June, 1985 and to pay whatever arrears available to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 10. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1127 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. 15. During the 36 years which elapsed thereafter this Court has reiterated those words on different occasions. R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan and Anr. 1976 1SCR 204 , Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhushan Kar and Anr. 1986CriLJ911 , S.K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju and Ors. 1987CriLJ1175 16. It would have been very appropriate if learned Judges of the Division Bench who rendered the impugned order would have reminded themselves of the above caution administered by the apex court more than three decades ago. 17. For the aforesaid reasons we have to interfere with the impugned order. We hereby set aside the directions issued to the State Public Prosecutor as well as to the Home Minister and Home Secretary of the State. 18. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1126 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not necessary that the protest should always be in writing (para 42). (iv) If there is neither a written protest nor an oral protest at the time of receiving the compensation, the mere making of an application for reference under Section 18, by itself, would not be sufficient to infer that the claimant must be deemed to have accepted the amount under protest so as not to disentitle him of the remedy available under Section 18 of the Act. In other words, oral protest at the time of receiving the compensation cannot be inferred to have been made merely because, subsequently, an application for reference has been made under Section 18 66. In view of the above, the four petitions would now be placed before a learned Single Judge for being disposed of in accordance with law. Needless to say that petitions involving any of the above four questions will also be placed before a learned Single Judge for being disposed of in accordance with law. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
2000 (8) TMI 1125 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... odes provided under Sections 18 to 23 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Admissions are of many kinds they may be considered as being on the record as actual if that is either in the pleadings or in answer to interrogatories or implied from the pleadings by non-traversal. Secondly as between parties by agreement or notice. Since we have considered that admission for passing the judgment is based on pleadings itself it is unnecessary to examine as to what kinds of admissions are covered by Order XII, Rule 6 CPC. 18. We are not impressed with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no admission for the purpose of Order XII Rule 6 at all, nor that the admission if any is conditional because we cannot spell out any conditions stated therein nor the dismissal of application filed by Indian Overseas Bank in the suit has any relevance. Therefore, we are of the view that this case deserves to be dismissed with advocates' fees quantified at ₹ 10,000/-.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1124 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ocates. Furnishing of such Bank Guarantee will be in addition to the undertakings required to be furnished by the appellant pursuant to the order of the High Court which is subject matter of civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.18616 of 1999. Furnishing of such Bank Guarantee will also be without prejudice to the appellants rights and contentions regarding the merits of the decree-holders claim qua the arrested ship. Once such Bank Guarantee is furnished by the appellant and requisite undertakings as earlier ordered by the High Court are filed, the ship will be released from attachment and will be permitted to sail out of the port of Vishakhapatnam. In case the execution petition ultimately succeeds on merits against the appellant it will be open to Respondent No.1 decree-holder to encash the Bank Guarantee amount towards its claim in the execution proceedings. Subject to the aforesaid modification both the appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs in each of them.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1122 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be so enrolled cannot be a ground for setting aside an election of a returned candidate under sub-clause (iii) or (iv) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. A person enrolled in the electoral list by an authority empowered by law to prepare an electoral roll or to include a name therein is entitled to cast a vote unless disqualified under sub-section (2) to (5) of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. A person enrolled in the electoral roll cannot be excluded from exercising his right to cast vote on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility requirement as laid down in Section 19 or 27(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The view taken by the learned Designated Election Judge in the judgment under appeal cannot be found fault with. The appeal is held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The respondent has chosen not to appear. Hence no order as to the costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1121 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the record and is clearly contrary to the law. The petition, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court allowed the appeal only upon its view that the approach notice was not valid under Section 42(4). The Court has hence not had occasion to consider the appeal on merits. The appeal, being appeal No. IC No. 2 of 1999 filed by the Respondent is restored to the file of the Industrial Court at Salara for hearing and disposal on merits in accordance with the law. Since the dispute in the present case dates back to 1992, the Industrial Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, but in any event not later than 3 months from today. 22. The parties shall appear before, the Industrial Court for directions for fixing the date of hearing on August 14, 2000. 23. The petition is, thus, allowed, in the circumstances with no orders as to costs. 24. Ordinary copy may be made available to the parties on request.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1120 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s have passed in examination of this judgment before us. We are convinced that the judgment must be set aside and the company petition must be dismissed. We do so hereby. As H. P. goes back empty-handed to his family after losing a long drawn battle we are unable to follow the usual rule of awarding costs along with the result. 136. All interim orders will stand vacated with immediate effect. 137. All pending applications stand dismissed. 138. All administrators and special officers will stand discharged with immediate effect. 139. Stay of operation of this order is prayed for by Mr. Basu but in view of the lack of findings on jurisdictional issues in the judgment under appeal and in view of the poor factual materials brought before the court to make out a case of just and equitable winding up, or oppression, or mismanagement, the prayer is unhesitatingly refused. 140. All parties and all others concerned to act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1119 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to whom the application was marked, by order dated 31.1.98 refused to entertain the same on the ground that he is not "Magistrate" under the Act. It is this order that has been challenged by way of the instant petition. Reference to "Magistrate" wherever it has been made in the Act indicates that it refers to a "Judicial Magistrate" and not an "Executive Magistrate". This, I am of the view, is clear from the use of the term in Section 104 of the Act. Although "Magistrate" has not been defined in the Act I am in no doubt that it means "Judicial Magistrate". It was the "Judicial Magistrate" who was competent under Section 110 of the Act to take proceeding as required therein. 3. In view of the observation made Crl. M. (M) 2484/98 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly. I allow this petition. The Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law expeditiously. 4. The petition is disposed of.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1118 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ently, the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner is valid. 3. In view of the above the department had to return the amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest. The department only returned the principal amount but not the interest. The writ petition has been filed for claiming interest on the amount deposited by it. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that interest on principal amount must also be paid by the department. We agree with this submission as interest is the normal accretion on capital. Similar view has been taken by this Court in M/s. Babu Ram Daya Nand Prakash v. State of U. P. and others, 1997 U.P.T.C. 1264, Paras 8 and 9. 5. Following the said decision the petition is allowed. The Department is directed to pay 15 per cent interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date refund of the principal amount and this interest will be paid within three months of production of certified copy of the order before the authority concerned.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1117 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is no question of prevention of any public injury nor is it necessary for justice to public at large that the petitioners should be allowed to by pass the alternative remedy. It is worthwhile to note in my opinion, that less than 1 of the population is required to pay sales tax. The requirement to pay sales tax is not faced with any constitutional problem and hence, in the circumstances, it is not at all necessary to permit by passing of the effective alternative remedy. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I am firmly of the view that unless exceptions as enumerated in the foregoing paras exist as will be established by the pleadings of the parties, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction and permit bypassing of statutory alternative remedy. I, therefore, dismiss these petitions, relegate the parties to the alternative remedy of reply to the show cause notice and then preferring appeal etc. as statutorily provided. Interim relief, if any granted, stands vacated.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1116 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... id credit entries are subject-matter of assessment in the hands of Shri Umedsingh Champavat, Managing Director of the company. The Tribunal has remanded the matter in case of Shri Umedsingh Champavat to the Assessing Officer. Since this alleged unexplained credit against share capital in the sum of ₹ 73,54,000/- is also under consideration in the assessment case of Shri Umedsingh Champavat, we consider it fit to allow this appeal of the department on question No. 1 and remand the matter for the limited purpose of reassessing the company by the Assessing Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal partly succeeds only to the above limited extent and we remand the matter to the assessing authority for reassessing the company along with the assessment case of Shri Umedsingh Champavat on the alleged unexplained credit against share capital in the sum of ₹ 73,54,000/-. Since we have remanded the matter, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1115 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ermed to be a contingent event To vest, cannot be termed to be an executory devise. Be it noted however, that vested does not necessarily and always mean vest in possession but includes vest in interest as well. In the facts of the matter under consideration the issue pertaining to vesting however does not call for any opinion, more so by reason of the specific finding as regards the negation of Mahadeos interest as well as the assertion of Ramgopals adoption in the affirmative and as such the issue also loses its significance and we also express no opinion in regard thereto, save what is noted hereinbefore. On the wake of the aforesaid we are unable to record our concurrence with the submission of Mr. Sampath that the doctrine of res judicata has no manner of application, on the contrary we record our views that the second suit is barred by the doctrine and we see no merit in the appeal as such. The Appeal is therefore dismissed, there shall however be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1114 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , Sales Tax, Kanpur and others, 1994 U.P.T.C. 717. In these decisions it has been held that dues against the Company cannot be recovered against the personal assets of the Directors. 3. Following the said decisions this petition is allowed. The impugned recovery certificates against the petitioner are quashed. We direct that the recovery of dues against the Company shall not be made against the personal assets of the petitioner but recovery can proceed against the assets of the Company.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1113 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r. It has been held by the Court in G. C. Mehrotra v. Deputy Collector (Collection) Sales Tax, 1997 U.P.T.C. 1217, that such recovery cannot be made from the personal assests of the Director. 3. Following the said decisions this petition is allowed. The circular order dated 15th September, 1998 is quashed. The respondents assets of the petitioner but they can proceed against the assets of the Company.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1112 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee-opposite party, however, submitted that only in order to improve the quality of milk, the assessee-opposite party has mixed some milk powder in the milk already purchased by it and the resultant goods is also milk. The assessee has sold nothing else, but milk, which is exempt under Section 4 of the Act. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence and material on record had recorded a finding that in order to improve the quality of milk, the assessee has mixed some milk powder in the milk, but the nature of the commodity sold by the assessee remains the same i.e. the milk. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which are based on material on record, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The applicant having sold milk, there is no question of imposition of any tax as the same is exempted under Section 4 of the Act. 6. All the revisions lack merit and are dismissed in limine.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1111 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Section 4 of the Act. The provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Act is not applicable in the case of dealers where manufacturer is not liable to pay tax under the Act, as there was no liability for tax upon the applicants. However, it has found that the assessee has maintained the books of account and the manufacturing account. The payments made to labourers have been duly recorded in the books of accounts. Thus, there was no discrepancy in the books of account which require any best judgment assessment. 5. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact which are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record. The learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are being based on any irrelevant material or consideration. 6. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, which requires any interference in revision under Section 11 of the Act. The revision lacks merits and is dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1110 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petition since the same is not an effective and efficacious remedy and admittedly the first respondent failed to comply with the mandatory provision, namely, Sub-sec.(9) of Sec.23 of the Local Act. As observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998)8 S.C.C. 1, where there has been a violation of principles of natural justice and also failure in complying with the mandatory provisions from the Statute, the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar and the aggrieved person can approach this Court to vindicate his grievance. ( 8. ) UNDER these circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent is quashed and the first respondent is directed to restore the proceedings and pass fresh orders after affording ?an opportunity of being heard? as contemplated under Sec.23(9) of the Pondicherry General Sales-tax Act, 1967. All the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. All the writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1109 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he form in question giving full particulars of consignment which was being erred in the truck. He had also produced the bills and gate pass. Thus, merely because the Form 31 was not produced it cannot be said that there was any intention to evade the payment of tax. This Court in the case of Bharat Plywood Production (Pvt.) Ltd., Najibabad, Bjnor v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1989 U.P.T.C. 1097, has considered the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bulaki Das Vinod Kumar, Ghaziabad, reported in 1987 U.P.T.C. 154, wherein it has been held mat the intention to evade payment of tax has to be established before levying the penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision the impugned order dated 19m January, 1991 passed by the Tribunal is set aside holding that the applicant is not liable for penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. 6. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed.
........
|
