|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 579 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... el for the defendants that a perusal of clause 22 would show that this agreement was terminable. The said agreement has been terminated validly under clause 22 in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not complied with the stipulations as contained in paragraph 12 of the agreement. Therefore, it is submitted by the Counsel for the defendant that even on merits the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Not only is the plaintiff not entitled to any relief in this Notice of Motion, it is argued by the Counsel for the defendants, that the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine being not maintainable. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no merit in this Notice of Motion. Consequently the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. Counsel for the plaintiff at this stage had made a request that the operation of this order be stayed to enable him to carry the matter in appeal. The request is declined.
-
1997 (2) TMI 578 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... w that the assessee is entitled to the claim of brokerage and discount. 19. With regard to the claim for interest, the learned representatives of the parties had stated that it is linked with the genuineness of the cash credits and admission of the additional evidence. It was submitted that opinion on the point can be expressed only after a decision is arrived at about admission of additional evidence and genuineness of the cash credits. In the back drop of these facts, it would be premature to express any opinion on the assessee’s claim for interest. This being so, I refrain myself from expressing any opinion on this aspect of the matter. 20. In view of the foregoing discussions, hold that the assessee is not entitled for admission of additional evidence and the claim of brokerage and discount. No opinion is being expressed on the assessee’s claim of interest. 21. Let the record of both the appeals be forwarded to the regular Bench for further action at its end.
-
1997 (2) TMI 577 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndustrial Corporation 1992 ISJ (Banking) 129, and hence, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 13. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observation of the learned Magistrate that he is not having power to drop the proceedings, once he issued summons for the appearance of the accused is also incorrect in view of the decision of the apex Court as well as this Court in K. M. Mathew's case and Mutthinedi Ramakrishna Chowdary's case, 1st and 2nd referred to above. The learned Magistrate has got power to drop the proceedings if after appearance of the accused it is found that there is no evidence to be tried against the accused. 14. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate dtd. 12-7-1996 in Crl.M.P. No. 2591/1996 in CC No. 11/1996 is set aside and the proceedings in CC No. 11/1996 insofar as the petitioner concerned, are quashed. 15. Revision allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erson with papers to the office of the Government Pleader. However, while the appellant cannot be held responsible for his client's failure to attend the office, the appellant cannot shift the blame entirely on his staff. As the head of the office it was his responsibility to make sure that the work is properly attended to and the staff performs its functions properly and diligently. The appellant has, therefore, rightly been held guilty of negligence. However, in the absence of any moral turpitude or delinquency on his part, we cannot sustain the finding of the Bar Council of India that his conduct in the facts and circumstances of this case amounts to professional misconduct. In fact the various mitigating circumstances have been noted by the Bar Council of India itself. The negligence on the part of the appellant in these circumstances cannot be construed as professional misconduct. 15. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 575 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ister and noting the reference number of the Register and place of attestation in the affidavits). The concerned authorities shall also ensure due observance of the Rules relating to Oath Commissioner/Notaries, which require the submission of quarterly reports by the Oath Commissioner and returns is Form XIV by Notaries and inspection of their registers by the person authorised. To avoid invalidation of acts already done, the directions contained herein shall be effective prospectively. 10. In this case, having regard to the explanation furnished by the Oath Commissioner, admitting her mistake and assuring to act properly in future, I do not find it necessary to direct initiation of any action against the Oath Commissioner, in pursuance of the notice, and treat it as closed. 11. As the affidavit verifying the writ petition is signed by some one other than the petitioner it has to he held that the petition filed is defective. One week for rectification. 12. Order accordingly.
-
1997 (2) TMI 574 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e nature of the land. On the other hand, the matter was kept at large. At that stage, the acquisition proceedings were initiated. As a consequence, no further action has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner. Consequently, the entire issue was at large. Obvious therefore, that when there was conflict of decisions between two learned single Judges, the Division Bench has gone into the question. But, it had not properly considered the effect of the provisions of the Act and came to the conclusion that the explanation of 'waste land' Under Section 7 includes cultivable, waste and gair mumkin pahar is cultivable waste land and the respondents became owners of the land and entitled to the compensation. In view of the above discussion, the view taken by the Division Bench is clearly in error. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and confirmed(sic) that of the District Court. 19. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 573 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We are not impressed. The plaintiff has paid only a sum of ₹ 5,000/- in December, 1978 as against the consideration of ₹ 60,000/-. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance on 4.9.1982, while decreeing the refund of their earnest money. Defendant No.4 purchased the suit house on November 19, 1982 for a consideration of ₹ 90,000/-. May be, he knew he was purchasing litigation and probably it was for that reason that he may not have paid the full amount of the value. In any event, we cannot ignore the fact that Defendants 1 to 3 are also appellants before us. We are also not prepared to say that as between plaintiff and the fourth defendant, the equities are in favour of the plaintiff alone. 16. In the above circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the High Court and restore the decree of the Trial Court inasmuch as Defendants 1 to 3 did not choose to file an appeal against the decree. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 572 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plements intended for agriculture purpose and it is supplying them to its members, namely, ‘A’ class member societies. 11. We, therefore, find that the situation available in this case is entirely different from the facts of the case of Assam Co-operative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. (supra). In the above case, the Supreme Court had to consider marketing of agricultural produce of the members of the society and not sale to members of the society. So was the case in Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra ) which arose under section 80P(2)(a)(iii ). 12. In the light of the above discussion, we are inclined to take the view that even taking into consideration the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Assam Co-operative Apex Marketing Society Ltd.’s case (supra), the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 80P(2)(a)( iv). The question referred is, thus, answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
1997 (2) TMI 571 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... epartmental proceedings cannot be upheld and must be set aside. The Tribunal was also not right in taking the view that even though the second charge of misappropriation of the sums of ₹ 379 and ₹ 799 realised as customs duty was established, the punishment of compulsory retirement that was imposed on the respondent could not be sustained. Having regard to the fact that the second charge related to misappropriation of funds for which the punishment of compulsory retirement could be imposed by the Tribunal, in exercise of its jurisdiction, could not direct the appellate authority to review the penalty imposed on the respondent. We are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment dated 15-6-1993 of the Tribunal in OA No. 1045 of 1991 is set aside and OA No. 1045 of 1991 filed by the respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 570 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... l, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 569 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the same factual situation. Mr. Janarthana Raja submitted that the question, atleast, can be referred to a Full Bench so that there can be an authoritative view on this point. It is also not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee for the reason that the decision of this Court in Tax Case No. 1410 of 1982 was rendered on the same facts found by the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1978-79. Since there are no new facts and no materials which have come into existence warranting us to take a different view, it is not possible to refer the matter to a Full Bench, for reconsideration of the issue. Further, it is seen, the earlier Bench of this Court has followed a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (supra), in answering the question referred to it and hence, we are not inclined to take a different view. Therefore, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 568 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... imary or material facts for effecting the assessment. On this basis, the division bench held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act were unsustainable and without jurisdiction. Heard counsel and perused the relevant records. We are of the view that the finding of the division bench that all primary or material facts were placed before the officer during the original assessment is unassailable. In such circumstances, notice issued to the respondent/assessee under Section 147 of the Act cannot be sustained. The division bench was, therefore, right in its reasoning and conclusion, to hold in favour of the respondent (assessee). We decline to interfere in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 567 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... at the preliminary scrutiny reveals that the real nature of the expenditure of ₹ 14,834 is of entertainment. He has worked the disallowance as follows - Rs. As shown in tax Audit report 404 As shown staff welfare expenses 619 As claimed business expenses 18,834 19,857 Less Basic Deduction 5,000 Added in total income 15,857 (sic) 11. We find that the CIT (Appeals) has not done any scrutiny on his own and he deleted the addition only on the basis of the certificate given by the General Manager, which the Revenue arraigns as self-serving. In principle, the CIT (Appeals) does not seem to be correct. However, considering the smallness of the issue and expenditure on gifts as claimed by the General Manager cannot be ruled out, we reduce the disallowance to ₹ 8,000 on estimate basis as against ₹ 15,857 effected by the Assessing Officer. The appeal is partly allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is partly allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 566 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cise & customs duty that would become opening stock of the following year and at that time, the revenue should not disallow that part of the closing stock to the extent of excise & customs duty by invoking section 43B of the Act. The assessee had raised the issue of closing stock should not include any part of excise & customs duty that was paid in the year even if, the stock on which it was paid, still remains unsold. This was considered in paragraph 11 earlier and the contention of the assessee was accepted. Because, the direction of the CIT (A) was so issued on the alternative plea raised by the appellant which, in view of the above conclusion in paragraph 11 above, is infructuous. This issue is decided accordingly. 25. In ground No. 14, the grievance is on the direction of the CIT (A) to rework the interest on section 215 of the Act which, in our opinion, being reasonable, does not call for any interference. In the result both the appeals are allowed in part.
-
1997 (2) TMI 565 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... oornan, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 564 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... rnan, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2 have in fact violated the other of injunction or not. In our opinion, it would be an unnecessary and empty formality. Accordingly, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated November 1, 1996 in A.O.No.1407 of 1991. It is brought to our notice that respondents 4 and 5 in these appeals (Ashok Temkar and Kiran Patil) also claimed to be tenants of certain portions in the said building. Their claims have not been investigated by the High Court, probably in view of the finding on the aforesaid question of law. the matters shall go back to the High Court to the extent of the said respondents (i.e. other than Defendants 1 and 2) to determine whether any or both of them are guilty of violating the injunction order. Insofar as Defendant No. 2 (Sri K.S. Jhunjhunwala) is concerned, the order of the Civil Court holding him guilty of contempt and sentencing him to one month's imprisonment is affirmed. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 562 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r the punishment awarded to the respondent was disproportionate to his misconduct. The impugned judgment and order of High Court, therefore, are unsustainable. 20. Coming to the next submission of the respondent that he was denied a reasonable opportunity by the Enquiry Officer, we find that the same is devoid of any merits. The respondent was unable to illustrate in what manner he was denied a reasonable opportunity. 21. The impugned orders made in the review applications filed by the appellants are also unsustainable. In the review applications, all these contentions were specifically taken up, yet the High Court without adverting to any of these contentions has dismissed these review applications without assigning sustainable reasons. 22. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed. The impugned judgments and orders of High Court dated may 27, 1993 and November 25, 1993 are quashed and set aside. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 561 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... refrain from carrying on competitive business in the commodities in respect of the agency terminated, or for loss of goodwill, is, prima facie, of the nature, of a capital receipt. 35. Now the question remains to be decided is Whether the amount of ₹ 11 lakhs, received by the assessee can be said to be profit from his employment? We answer this question in the negative. The reason is, it was not a remuneration or reward or return for his services in any sense of the word. The fact of employment was the cause without which the occurrence would not have happened (CAUSA SINE QUA NON). It was not the immediate cause (CAUSA CAUSANS). It did not, therefore, arise therefrom. The receipt in question cannot be construed to be of revenue nature. It was clearly a capital receipt. In view of this, the amount of ₹ 11 lakhs, being the compensation paid to the assessee to HCGL against a RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, is not exigible to tax. 36. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 560 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... efects, but the assessee refused to compromise the desired quality standard and, accordingly, demanded the advances that were paid earlier. In the case of the second item of ₹ 3,00,000 it remains a principal even now and there has been increase in the turnover of their products and the arrangement continued. With a view not to agitate the issue any further, the amounts were written off. The last item was the amount that was refused to be paid by Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. The rival contentions in regard to the above have been very carefully considered. The various reasons as noted by the CIT(Appeals) and as advanced before us do indicate that there was considerable commercial application based on which these amounts have been treated as written off. The commercial basis is a reasonable one and in the circumstances of the case, we accept the claim of the assessee and allow the same. 18 to 23. These paras are not reproduce here as they involve minor issues .
........
|
