Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 9525 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 1064 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e award of Lok Adalat was permitted to continue business upto 31.3.2004 and hand over possession of the land used as stockyard. When he failed to do so, respondents 1 and 2 instituted E.A. No. 25 of 2008 (sic. E.P. No. 1 of 2008) for delivery of possession. The fourth respondent herein was very much party to E.A. (sic. EP) Curiously fourth respondent either on his behalf or on behalf of third respondent firm did not file counter opposing petitioners' application (sic. the said EP). When the E.A. (No. 25 of 2008 filed by petitioners) was dismissed by the Court below, present writ petition is filed on 18.5.2009. In effect, petitioners seek to challenge the award passed half-a-decade ago. If such writ petitions are entertained at the instance of persons like the petitioners, the very spirit of the Act and opportunity to settle disputes before Lok Adalat would be defeated. The writ petition is misconceived. 15. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1063 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... hallenge by reading words in it which are not to be found therein. 11. In our opinion, the High Court erred in not considering the application for anticipatory bail in accordance with law. The defence put forward by the appellant cannot be obliterated at this stage itself. We are also of the opinion, that the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the dispute herein is purely of a civil nature cannot be brushed aside at this stage. We, therefore, grant anticipatory bail to the appellant in the case pending on the basis of FIR No. 107/2007 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur City under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC now pending only under Section 420 and 120B IPC. It is directed that in the event of arrest the appellant shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. It is also directed that the appellant shall join investigation as and when required. 12. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1062 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... time of hearing, the Learned Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the ITAT, the Assessing Officer vide his assessment order dated 31.01.2008, allowed the interest claim of Rs 1,39,33,952/- in favour of the assessee. The Learned CIT (A) deleted the penalty on the ground that the Assessing Officer has already allowed the claim of the assessee by order dated 31.01.2008. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The very basis for the imposition of the penalty was allowed by the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the ITAT order, therefore, the very imposition of penalty cannot survive. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT (A) and we uphold the same. Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court today on the 4th day of December 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1061 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ncial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills (supra). 18. The direction given by the High Court for review of pending cases in the light of judgment of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (supra)is also unsustainable because, as mentioned above, the High Court was not called upon to examine the legality or otherwise of the terms of agreement entered into between the Appellant-corporation and Respondent under which the latter was obliged to pay interest at the particular rate with periodical rests. Moreover, conclusion No. 3 contained in para 55 of that judgment clearly postulates that stipulations incorporated in the contract entered into and binding on the parties shall govern their substantive rights and obligations in the matter of recovery and payment of interest. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by the Respondent is dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1060 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... nd in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the High Court has exercised revisional jurisdiction with material illegality and irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice to the appellants and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 12. For the reasons stated in the judgment, the appeal succeeds. The judgment dated May 25, 2007, rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 5819 of 2006 remanding the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for passing proper order of conviction of the appellants and imposing punishment on them is hereby set aside. 13. The judgment dated September 7, 2006, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial Case No. 271 of 2000 convicting the appellants under Sections 148, 342 read with Section 149 and Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC and directing their release on probation for a period of two years is restored.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1059 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e Plaintiff apply for withdrawal of the Suits. In the light of this statement, the Suits are allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such. No order as to costs. Refund of Court fees as per Rules. 2. Notices of Motion in both Suits do not survive and stand disposed off accordingly. Ad-interim/interim orders stands vacated forthwith.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1058 - ITAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... in the light of the questions which were before this Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a latter case, the Courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasonings. In H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India 1971 3 SCR 9 this Court cautioned It is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its context, as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed. 9. The order pronounced in the open court on 17.12.2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1057 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... , and ended sometime in 2002. Even if the petitioner were to be given benefit of doubt, for some reason, as the suits (one of which was filed by him) were pending till 30-4-2004, he ought to have approached this court, seeking the reliefs he now claims, within three years from that date. He has, however, filed the present petition on 3rd March, 2009, clearly beyond the period of limitation. 16. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the executor nominated in the Will, propounded by the present petitioner had approached this court, seeking probate. That petition (No. 46/2007) was dismissed on 2-4-2008, by the court, holding that the petitioner there (Arjun Raj Malhotra) had concealed material facts. The present petition propounds the same Will. The present petitioner was a party to those proceedings. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the present probate petition is not maintainable, as it is time barred. Probate case No. 5/2009 is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1056 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... ty shares that the provisions of the takeover code would get attracted. Warrants by themselves do not carry any voting rights. The acquirer will acquire voting rights only when the warrants are converted into equity shares and till such time such conversion takes place, the takeover code does not get triggered. In this background, we find that the request of the appellant seeking exemption from the provisions of the takeover code is premature. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as such. We, however, make it clear that if the acquirer exercises the option to get the warrants converted into equity shares after they are allotted, it shall be open to the appellant or the acquirer, as the case may be, to apply to the Board seeking exemption from the provisions of the takeover code. If and when such an application is filed, we have no doubt that the Board shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and within the time prescribed by the takeover code. No costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1055 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 19. Thus in my considered opinion, whenever blank cheque or post dated cheque is issued a trust is reposed that the cheque will be filed in or used as per the understanding or agreement between parties. If there is prima facie reason to believe that said trust is not honoured then continuation of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be abuse of process of law. It is in the interest of justice that parties in such case are left to Civil remedy. In this case, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, in my opinion, this petition should succeed. The order of issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby quashed and set aside. 20. The writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1054 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Central Excise, Indore. In that case, the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging notice issued by the Excise Officer. Aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench is quite distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the notices are not challenged by the petitioners, the petitioners in the present case have challenged initiation of proceeding against them on the ground the t the same is without jurisdiction. The Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 372 has laid down that if initiation of action against the assessee is without jurisdiction in absence of recording reasons, then writ petition filed by the such assessee is maintainable. In such circumstances, all the three writ petitions stand allowed as no reason to believe was recorded by the officer before conducting the raid. Impugned Panchanama (Annexure P/1) and consequential proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1053 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd 134 Comp. Cases 2 and Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Shiv Saraswati Iron and Steel Rerolling Mills 1998 (4) SCC 539. Therefore, the interim award cannot even be termed as one passed blindly on the strength of an admission made by the Petitioner. It is neither perverse nor arbitrary nor violative of any law. Hence, the same does not call for any interference. 39. In view of the above, the main original petition Tr.O.P. No. 628 of 2008 is dismissed. Since the Petitioner has already deposited the interim award amount in the execution proceedings, the application of the Respondent in A. No. 5748 of 2008 is allowed and they are permitted to furnish Bank Guarantee in the very same execution proceedings and withdraw the amount deposited therein by the Petitioner. There will be no order as to costs. As a consequence O.A. No. 1078 of 2008 is dismissed and A. No. 5264 of 2008 is closed in view of the order passed in the main O.P.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1052 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... o had given statement before the authorities. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Revenue has not succeeded in demolishing the defense of consistency argued by the assessee-company. The onerous responsibility cast upon the assessing authority to discredit the agreement of the sole selling agents has not been discharged. The observations of the assessing officer alleging the violation of terms and conditions of the agency agreement are not convincing. 14. In the light of the above, we find that the there is no justification even in sustaining a partial disallowance of addition of Rs.7,50,000/- against the assessee. The said addition sustained by the CIT(A) is deleted. 15. The assessee is successful in its appeal. Obviously for no further reasons, the Revenue fails in its appeal. 16. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, this 16th day of December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1051 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ... ... ... ..... essee was entitled to a deduction equal to 30% of additional wages paid to regular workers employed by the assessee in the previous year. The deduction to the extent of Rs.18,09,043/- is 30% of additional wages paid in Assessment Year 2004-05, remaining Rs.14,37,575/- is 30% of the additional wages paid for the earlier two assessment years. But the Commissioner of Income-tax held the last two items are not allowable. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, an order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.273 & 274/Bang/2005, dt.21.12.06, for the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 in ACIT v. M/s. Texas Instruments (India) P. Ltd., was produced before us in which the Tribunal on exactly identical issue had decided in assessee's favour. Following the same, we allow the appeal by the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 11th day of December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1050 - SUPREME COURT
Claim for Restoration of possession - issuance of certificate - predecessor-in-interest of the appellants claimed to be protected tenants and sought ownership certificates to become full owners of the suit land - Orders passed without following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ("The Act 1950") - Validity of the tenancy certificate u/s 38-E (2) - HELD THAT:- This judgment and order of the High Court also attained finality as it was not challenged by the respondents any further. in our view, the question of reconsideration of the validity of the tenancy certificate u/s 38-E (2) so far as the appellant nos. 1& 3 are concerned, could not arise in any subsequent proceedings whatsoever. More so, the entitlement of the said appellant nos. 1&3 to claim restoration of possession also cannot be reopened/questioned, as their entitlement to that effect had attained finality as the judgment and order of the High Court, wherein, their right to claim restoration of possession had been upheld, was not challenged by the respondents any further.
Thus, it was not permissible for the High Court to re-open the issue in respect of all the appellants as to whether they were entitled for making the applications for restoration of possession. There can be no doubt that once a protected tenant gets a certificate of ownership u/s 38-E(2) of the Act 1950, he has a right to apply for restoration of possession to him if he has been dispossessed. The protected tenant has a right to ask for summary eviction of trespasser.
The High Court ought to have taken into consideration as under what circumstances the respondents had been claiming their right to object to the grant of certificates to the appellants and, as to whether the alleged sale deed which had never been produced in any Court, and which was admittedly in contravention of Section 47 of the Act, could give any cause of action to the respondents as, the transaction itself remains inconsequential and ineffective rather, void ab initio. The respondents also could not explain as since what date or year they had been in possession of the land in dispute.
Before the RDO, the case of the respondents was that they had been in possession of suit land in pursuance of decree of Civil Court passed in OS No.5/1963. The Order of the RDO reveals that the respondents had claimed before him that they were in possession of the suit land since Ist June, 1950. The High Court in its judgment has taken note of the pleadings taken by the respondents that they had purchased the suit land from original pattedar Smt. Ayesha Begum in the year 1954. However, it is not stated therein, that they had been put in possession of said land. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has further taken note of the pleadings taken by respondents that Smt. Ayesha Begum, the original land holder offered to sell the entire land to the father of the respondents in the year 1962 and it was so purchased by him for valuable consideration.
From the order of Appellate Authority, it is evident that the pleadings before Appellate Authority had been that the respondents were in continuous possession of suit land measuring 17 acres and 20 guntas since last 50 years. The pleadings taken by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in earlier writ petition decided, that they purchased the said land in the year 1955, for valuable consideration. While deciding the case after remand, the RDO in its judgment and order has taken note of the pleadings taken by respondents that the father of the respondents purchased the said land from Smt. Ayesha Begum in the year 1965.
Thus, it is evident that respondents even today are not aware as to what is their case exactly and on what basis they claim the relief. The copy of alleged sale deed or agreement to sell has never been produced before any Court or Authority. It becomes well nigh, impossible to determine as to whether the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents ever purchased the suit property and even if it was so, admittedly, the transaction was void being in contravention of Section 47 of the Act 1950. More so, at the time of argument it was pointed out that respondents have entered into compromise with appellant no.3 in the year 2003 and a rectification deed had been prepared.
This is an indication that no valid title had ever passed in favour of respondents, otherwise there was no occasion for them to enter into a compromise with appellant no.3.
In such a fact-situation the court is under an obligation to do substantial justice even if there are some technical points involved in the case. The Act 1950, being beneficial legislation is to be construed liberally and rights of the tenants are required to be protected.
Hence, the appeal stands allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.
Both the applications for substitution of legal representatives/lateral descendants of deceased appellant No.1- Edukanti Kistamma; and deceased Lr.No. iv of deceased appellant no.2 are allowed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1049 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... ee should obtain loans from private parties always at the bank rate. These are matters of prevailing money market conditions and creditworthiness of the parties involved. In the present case, the interest has not been paid to the parties covered by Section 40A(2)(b). The payees are outsiders. In these circumstances, the differential rate of 2% does not make out a case against the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance at Rs.1,06,971/-. 9. The sixth and last ground raised by the assessee is that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of 20% of expenses like vehicle and petrol expenses, telephone expenses and depreciation on scooter and pager. The amounts involved are of Rs.13,610/-, Rs.12,451/- and Rs.4,875/- respectively. We are not inclined to interfere in the above disallowances. This ground is accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, this 16th day of December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1048 - SC ORDER
... ... ... ... ..... for the appellant. Delay condoned. The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1047 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... ltural income and expenses. The allegation of ld. CIT that the A.O. has not examined the agricultural income and expenses at the time of framing the assessment under section 143(3) is not correct. The A.O. in the assessment framed under section 143(3) has accepted the agricultural expenses incurred. It is well settled law that no revision under section 263 can be done on change of opinion as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. -vs.- CIT reported in 243 ITR 83. 16. In view of the foregoing, we are convinced that the assessment framed by the A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 is hereby cancelled. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The Order pronounced in the Court on 31.12.2009
-
2009 (12) TMI 1046 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... of by directing the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration) to complete the proceedings and pass an adjudication order within six months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment of hearing. The stay of the suspension order shall continue till an adjudication order is passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration). Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e statutory charge created under Section 11- AAAA of the said Act, the sales tax dues shall have precedence over the mortgage created in favour of the Bank. To the same effect is another decision of this Court in State of M.P. & Anr. vs. State Bank of Indore & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 441, wherein it was held that a charge created by Section 33C of the M.P. General Sales-Tax Act, 1958 in favour of the State in respect of sales-tax dues shall prevail over the charge created by the dealer in favour of the Bank in respect of the loan. In view of the said pronouncements, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
........
|