|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 871 Records
-
2013 (3) TMI 778 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded by the respondent has been deposited by the appellant, this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation to issue No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) to the respondent No. 1 within two weeks from today. 3. That the amount has been deposited by the appellant which has been accepted by the respondent No. 3. Therefore, we set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 12996 of 2012 in Special Civil Application No. 8997 of 2012. The fact and effect of deposit made by the appellant may be considered by the learned Single Judge afresh in accordance with law. 4. Civil Application is disposed of.
-
2013 (3) TMI 777 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion Pvt. Ltd. and from using the domain name www.agilentconstruction.com or in any other name identical to or deceptively similar to or containing the trademark 'AGILENT' of the plaintiffs and / or from offering, selling or offering for sale any goods or services under the trade name or mark ‘AGILENT’ or any other trade name or mark deceptively similar to the trademark / label/ logo ‘AGILENT’ of the plaintiffs . 19. The plaintiffs are also given liberty to serve a copy of this order on the Registrar of Companies with which the defendant is registered, for, upon the failure of the defendant to take steps for rectification of its name, take compulsory steps for change of name of the defendant. 20. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that in view of the defendant having not contested the suit, he does not press the relief of damages or delivery. 21. Decree sheet be drawn up. 22. The defendant having not contested the suit, no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 776 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s thoroughly misconceived. Section 13(3A) of the Act has been inserted to extend an opportunity to a borrower to raise his defence to the notice issued under Section 13(2) thereof. The petitioners must respond to the notice by submitting their objection, if any, before they can urge the writ court to examine the question of jurisdiction of the authorised officer to issue such notice. The point of jurisdiction of the authorised officer to issue the demand notice could be raised in an objection under Section 13(3A) of the Act and further step under the Act may not be taken, provided the objection has merit. It would not be proper for the writ court to interfere at this stage having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 and (2004) 3 SCC 440. The writ petition stands dismissed, without any order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this or be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (3) TMI 775 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Subject to the exception carved out in para-138 of this order, the period of limitation for an appeal by a 'victim' under proviso to Section 372 of the Code shall be as under - (a) In case of acquittal- (b) Any other sentence or order- Let the records of these cases be accordingly placed before the respective Benches as per roster for final disposal. 1List Annexure 'A' to this order Annexure 'A' 2 (i) British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Captain Itbar Singh & Ors., AIR 1959 SC 1331; (ii) Ghanshyamdas vs. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sale Tax, Nagpur & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 766 and (iii) Shri Balaganeshan Metals vs. MN Shanmugham Chetty, (1987) 2 SCC 707. 3 (i) SA Venkataraman vs. The State, AIR 1958 SC 107; and (ii) Workmen of National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. The National Grindlays Bank Ltd., (1976) 1 SCC 925. 4 (i) Bengal Immunity Co. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661; (ii) CIT, MP & Bhopal vs. Sodra Devi, AIR 1957 SC 832.
-
2013 (3) TMI 774 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN
... ...
... ... ..... ily. Resultantly, the petition for leave to appeal of the complainant- M/s Porwal Trading Corporation is hereby returned to the petitioner for presentation before the court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The office shall return the original application/appeal to the petitioner after making proper endorsements on it and after retaining a true copy thereof. The petitioner shall thenafter immediately present the same, if he choses to do so to the concerned Sessions Judge, who will entertain and decide the same on merits as expeditiously as possible. The parties are directed to appear before learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara for this purpose on 22.4.2013 at 10.00 a.m. The delay caused and time consumed by this Court in disposing the matter will not affect prejudicially to the S.B.Cr. Leave to Appeal No.100/2012 appellant under the law of limitation and this delay will be ignored by the lower court under this order. The petition for leave to appeal is hereby disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (3) TMI 773 - HIGH COURT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... lainants where complaints are filed in furtherance of common good. To illustrate this, complaint filed by a Food Inspector under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, will vest a right in the complainant to seek leave to appeal under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The illustrations may be many, they cannot be put in watertight jackets. Suffice it to say that holder of the cheque is a victim and he can prefer an appeal by invoking proviso to section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Hence, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity as the Court below had rightly entertained the appeal. Having expressed the above opinion, this Court uphold the impugned order, hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the application being CRAN 3690 of 2012 is also dismissed. Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
-
2013 (3) TMI 772 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der - “9. It can be gathered from the above discussion that the provision of Section 110(2) in so far as the prescription of a time limit for holding seized goods, is deemed mandatory; the consequence of not issuing a show cause notice within the period or extended period specified is clearly spelt out to be that the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized? apparent from a combined reading of Section 110(2) and its proviso . The corollary is not that the Customs authorities lose jurisdiction to issue show cause notice.” 4. As pointed out above, in the present case no show cause notice under Section 124 had been issued within the period of one year from the date of seizure, that is, up to 25-4-2012. The show cause notice had only been issued subsequently in the year 2013. That would not alter the position. 5. As a result, the goods are directed to be released unconditionally. 6. The writ petition is allowed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 771 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner. Special leave petition is dismissed. Question of law is kept open.
-
2013 (3) TMI 770 - CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... in input service used in generation of power sold outside. 4. If aforesaid aspects are clearly calculated with the assistance of the appellant who shall provide every detail of the aspect, learned authority shall consider whether demand still arises. If the figures are not calculated by the appellant and does not reach to the satisfaction of learned adjudicating authority, he shall pass appropriate order. By this we do not say that he should agree to the appellant because of submission that proportionate Cenvat credit has been reversed. It is left open to the authority to hear the appellant in all fairness and decide the issue afresh. 5. All the contentions raised by the appellant, both on facts and law on the basis of material available on record, shall be considered by the authority and a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed. In the result, stay application is disposed and appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)(D.N. PANDA)
-
2013 (3) TMI 769 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ured creditors of the Applicant company and the consents obtained from them for the proposed Scheme is set out in a table forming part of the application, which reads as under Transferor company No.1 Applicant/Transferor company No.2 Transferee company No. of shareholders 2 2 2 Consent given 2 2 2 Page No. 213-220 162-167 249-257 No. of secured creditors ? Term Loan NIL NIL NIL Consent given - - - Page No. - - - No. of secured creditors-Hypothecation NIL NIL NIL Consent given - - - Page No. - - - No. of unsecured creditors 9 Consent given 4 Page No. 172-172A 7. A prayer has been made for dispensation of the requirement of convening meetings of shareholders and unsecured trade creditors of the Applicant company. 8. In view of the details set out in the above chart, the requirement of convening the meetings of the shareholders and the unsecured trade creditors of the Applicant company is dispensed with. 9. The application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. 10. Order dasti.
-
2013 (3) TMI 768 - SUPREME COURT
Change in the Eligibility / Selection criteria after conducting the examination - Application of Principle of "Rules of Game" - Change in the rules after the game is over - After the examination was conducted, Chief Justice ordered that the examination be treated as a Competitive Examination - After change, only 3 candidates were found suitable out of 21 - Changes made to be with retrospective or prospective effect? - HELD THAT:- Such question arose in the context of employment under State which under the scheme of our Constitution is required to be regulated by “law” made under Article 309 or employment under the instrumentalities of the State which could be regulated either by statute or subordinate legislation. In either case the ‘law’ dealing with the recruitment is subject to the discipline of Article 14.
In the context of the employment covered by the regime of Article 309, the ‘law’ – the recruitment rules in theory could be either prospective or retrospective subject of course to the rule of non- arbitrariness. However, in the context of employment under the instrumentalities of the State which is normally regulated by subordinate legislation, such rules cannot be made retrospectively unless specifically authorised by some constitutionally valid statute.
If the principle of Manjusree’s case ([2008 (2) TMI 820 - SUPREME COURT] ) is applied strictly to the present case, the respondent High Court is bound to recruit 13 of the “best” candidates out of the 21 who applied irrespective of their performance in the examination held.
In such cases, theoretically it is possible that candidates securing very low marks but higher than some other competing candidates may have to be appointed. In our opinion, application of the principle as laid down in Manjusree case (supra) without any further scrutiny would not be in the larger public interest or the goal of establishing an efficient administrative machinery.
No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the ‘rules of the game’ insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the case of C. Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore [1964 (9) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT]. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the ‘rules of the game’ stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court.
We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard.
-
2013 (3) TMI 767 - SC ORDER
REFERENCE : 2012 (9) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT ... ... ... ... ..... rs Anil Katiyar, Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Issue notice. Connect with S.L.P. (C) No. 14778 of 2012 - C.I.T. Bangalore & another vs. M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd.
-
2013 (3) TMI 766 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... nt Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv., Mr. Utkarsh Sharma,Adv. O R D E R Heard Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2013 (3) TMI 765 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntitled to any reliefs of buy out or sell out under Section 402 of the Act. It is not that only because apart from the Kapur family since a group of shareholders not belonging to the Kapur family holds 10 per cent of the issued and paid up capital of the Respondent No. 1 Company, that reliefs of buy out or sell out are not granted to the Appellants. Question No. 6 set out in paragraph 2 of this judgment is therefore answered accordingly. 95. In the circumstances, the Appellants have not established any case of oppression of shareholders by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The Appellants have also failed to establish that Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are solely responsible for not calling the meetings or are guilty of siphoning funds or causing loss to Respondent No. 1 Company thereby mismanaging the Respondent No. 1 Company. The above Appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. The Company Applications taken out in the Appeal also stand disposed of.
-
2013 (3) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... udicating officer in pursuance of the notice issued by the DRI; (iv) Since the communications dated 4 January, 2013 (Exhibits M-1 and M-2) of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade have been issued without furnishing to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, we set aside those communications with a direction that a fresh decision thereon shall be taken in accordance with law after furnishing to the petitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing after the decision of the DRI; (v) We clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. Since the action which is proposed to be initiated by the DGFT is consequential to the investigation that has been conducted by the DRI, we have issued these directions to facilitate the passing of an order of adjudication by the adjudicating officer in pursuance of the notice to show cause issued by the DRI. 3. The petition is disposed of in these terms. 4. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 763 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... there was a bona fide belief on the part of the respondent - assessee in arriving at the written down value of the assets and the same has not been found to be false by the Revenue. Further the Tribunal also records the fact that as the machinery was converted into stock-in-trade at book value, there was no short term capital gain or loss in such transaction. Hence, the mistake was genuine and bona fide. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and held that the penalty in these facts is not justifiable, as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the respondent - assessee. 6. In view of the fact that the impugned order is based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 762 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ss of banking or providing credit facilities to its members. Further, Section 80 P(4) of the Act stipulates that “the provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank”. It only make the issue clear that “cooperative banks” are taken out from the ambit for deduction u/s 80 P of the Act, however, exemption is granted to primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. 8.4 From the above discussions and the decisions cited by the assessee and taking into account of the facts and the issue, we are in conformity with the order of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07-03-2013
-
2013 (3) TMI 761 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of Justice, Law has to bend before Justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice, nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error.” 9. The law being well settled on the issue, the appe al is liable to be dismissed. 10. In absence of any provision for condonation of dela y in filing the appeal under Section 18 of the Act, no time limit or extension of period of limitation could be granted dehors , the express provisions of law, for filing the appeal, as prayed. Therefore, the prayers and the appeal are rejected with the clarification that if and when an appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, it m ay be dealt with in accordance with law.
-
2013 (3) TMI 760 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gh Court in the matter of Sony India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2006) 285 ITR 213 (Delhi). 4) However, the Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision of this court in the matter of CIT v. Western India Paper and Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in 189 ITR 309 wherein it has been held that even where the assessee is not entitled to the deduction under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act, the deduction under Section 37 of the Act is available, if the expenditure was incurred exclusively only for the purpose of business. In the light of the decision of this Court in Western India Papers and Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the issue was remanded to the Assessing officer to determine whether the expenditure has not been incurred fully and exclusively for the business before extending the benefits of Section 37 of the Act. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain question (b). 5) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 759 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). 3. Similar issue had been raised by the Revenue in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Suashish Diamonds Limited being Income Tax Appeal No.568 of 2012. By an order dated 1st March 2013 in the matter of Suashish Diamonds Limited (supra), this Court has held that even if the expenditure as claimed is not allowable under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act, the same is allowable under Section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal in the above case had followed the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Western India Paper and Paperboard Private Limited reported in 189 ITR 309. 4. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the question of law as proposed as the assessee is in any view of the matter is entitled to the deduction under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, the question as raised is academic. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
............
|
