|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 986 Records
-
2009 (7) TMI 1242
Cenvat - Fraudulent availment of credit - the decision in the case of INDIAN SPECIAL CASTING PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., LUDHIANA [2009 (2) TMI 434 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - This is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution - appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1241
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, FactSet Research Systems Inc. (‘FactSet’ or ‘the applicant’) will not be taxable in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961, with respect to the subscription fees?
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant will not be taxable under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between the Government of India and the Government of United States of America with respect to the subscription fees?
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, if the applicant is not taxable in India for the subscription fees, its customers in India will be required to withhold taxes under section 195 of the Act on subscription fees paid to the applicant?
Assuming that the applicant has no other taxable income in India, whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant will be absolved from filing a tax return in India, under the provisions of section 139 of the Act with respect to the subscription fee?
-
2009 (7) TMI 1240
Issues Involved:
1. Impleadment of Ashok Kumawat as a respondent (IA No.6889/2009).
2. Continuation of the interim order dated 02.03.2009 (IA No.10881/2009).
Summary:
IA No.6889/2009:
The applicant, Ashok Kumawat, sought to be impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition, claiming he was handed over the charge of the office of Sarpanch after the petitioner was suspended. He argued that his presence was necessary to point out the illegalities committed by the petitioner and that he would be divested of the charge if the petition succeeded. The Court rejected the application, stating that the matter was solely between the petitioner and the Government. The applicant's role was deemed that of a witness rather than a necessary party, and he had no vested right to the office of Sarpanch. The application was thus dismissed.
IA No.10881/2009:
The petitioner sought clarification that the interim order dated 02.03.2009, which stayed the suspension order, continued to remain in operation as it had not been specifically vacated. The Court noted that the interim order was passed after notice and the respondents' failure to appear. The Court emphasized that the interim order was not intended to be limited to a particular period and should continue unless specifically vacated. The Court rejected the respondents' counsel's opinion that the interim order had lapsed and clarified that the interim order would continue until further orders. The application was disposed of, and the interim order was extended until further orders. The matter was listed for admission on 12.08.2009.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1239
Issues involved: Violation of principles of natural justice by depriving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellants.
The judgment pertains to appeals related to block assessment period and assessment year filed by the appellants. The appellants contended that they were not given a fair opportunity to be heard as the appeals were heard by different benches on various dates, leading to confusion and lack of continuity in the proceedings. They made representations to transfer the appeals to another bench in a different city, but the Tribunal proceeded to pass orders without addressing their concerns. The President of the Tribunal at Delhi issued administrative instructions to ascertain the status of the case, but the impugned orders were already delivered by the Tribunal at Chennai. The appellants sought a full-fledged hearing of the appeals, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in the process.
The Tribunal, despite the representations and requests for adjournment made by the appellants, proceeded to pass the impugned orders without giving a full opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal recorded the submissions of the appellants' counsel but did not postpone the proceedings. The judgment acknowledges that the Tribunal did not err in its approach to pass final orders, but it emphasizes the importance of ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. In light of the principle of natural justice and to provide the appellants with a fair chance to present their case, the impugned orders were set aside. The appellants were granted a de novo hearing before the Tribunal at Chennai, with a directive to proceed with the appeals without seeking adjournments. The judgment aims to uphold the principles of natural justice and expedite the disposal of the appeals within a specified timeframe for the interest of justice.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1238
The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for de novo consideration in accordance with law based on an earlier order from March 6, 2006. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1237
... ...
... ... ..... an, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1236
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition citing a previous decision in Union of India v. SICOM Limited. The delay was condoned.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1235
Issues:
Validity of license cancellation, Allegations of malice, Dismissal of writ petition summarily, Disputed questions of fact in writ petition
Validity of license cancellation:
The appellant's license for dealing in High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil was cancelled by the Licensing Authority due to alleged violations. The appellant challenged this cancellation through writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appellant had an alternative remedy. The appellant argued that the cancellation was politically motivated and mala fide, pointing to repeated raids on his establishment. However, the High Court found the allegations of malice vague and unsupported by evidence. The appellant contended that the show cause notice and FIR had discrepancies. The High Court upheld the license cancellation, emphasizing that the appellant could raise his contentions before the authorities under the relevant order.
Allegations of malice:
The appellant alleged political vendetta and malice by a Cabinet Minister, claiming the proceedings were initiated due to political rivalry. The High Court found the allegations of malice vague and lacking supporting evidence. The court emphasized that malice of fact must be pleaded and proved, distinguishing it from malice in law. The appellant's contentions regarding malice were considered by the High Court, which concluded that the appellant could address these issues through the statutory authorities under the relevant order.
Dismissal of writ petition summarily:
The appellant's writ petition challenging the license cancellation was dismissed summarily by the High Court, citing the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. The appellant argued that the mere existence of an alternative remedy should not bar a writ petition when an order is passed without jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court held that in this case, no jurisdictional error was established, and the High Court's decision to not entertain the writ petition was justified.
Disputed questions of fact in writ petition:
The appellant raised disputed questions of fact in the writ petition, including discrepancies in the quantity of diesel oil found during raids and the allegations made by the authorities. The Supreme Court noted that writ petitions are not typically meant to resolve disputed questions of fact. The Court emphasized that the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority were responsible for evaluating the evidence and determining the validity of the license cancellation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition, stating that it was not a case where the writ jurisdiction should be exercised.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and emphasizing that the appellant could address his grievances through the statutory authorities under the relevant order.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1234
Whether the order passed by Chief Electrical Engineer dated 11.12.1998 is amenable to judicial review on the touchstone of principles of natural justice?
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in concluding "unless formality theory" need not have been followed by the respondents?
-
2009 (7) TMI 1233
Valuation - whether the physician’s samples which are being sold by the respondents at a price, are required to be cleared on payment of duty at a value arrived at on the basis of the price of the comparable goods i.e. regular packs - the decision in the case of COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX, DAMAN Versus SIDMAK LABORATORIES (INDIA) LTD. [2008 (9) TMI 360 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where it was held that samples are not being cleared for free distribution but are being sold at factory gate and the wholesale price available at factory gate. In such scenario, the resort to the Valuation Rules, 1975 cannot be made - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1232
Valuation Customs - Second-hand photocopier machines imported - decision in the case of NEW COPIER SYNDICATE Versus COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & ST. (A), HYDERABAD [2008 (10) TMI 533 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] contested, where it was held that the revenue cannot reject the transaction value and proceed to determine the value under provisions of Rule 5 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - present appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1231
Whether the conviction of the two appellants for committing criminal contempt of court is justified and sustainable?
Whether the procedure adopted by the High Court in the contempt proceedings was fair and reasonable, causing no prejudice to the two appellants?
Whether it was open to the High Court to prohibit the appellants from appearing before the High Court and the courts sub-ordinate to it for a specified period as one of the punishments for criminal contempt of court?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the punishments awarded to the appellants can be said to be adequate and commensurate to their misdeeds?
-
2009 (7) TMI 1230
Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Evaluation of evidence regarding demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification.
3. Burden of proof on the accused and prosecution under Section 20 of the Act.
4. Consideration of discrepancies in witness testimonies in a judgment of acquittal.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The State appealed against the acquittal of a Head Constable convicted under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court acquitted the respondent due to lack of proof of demand and payment of illegal gratification. The State challenged this decision.
Issue 2: The judgment detailed incidents where the respondent allegedly demanded bribes for bail release. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies, including a hostile panch witness. The defense argued lack of evidence of demand and payment, leading to the High Court's acquittal based on insufficient proof.
Issue 3: The defense emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution under Section 20 of the Act. The court highlighted the need for foundational facts to be established by the prosecution before shifting the burden to the accused. The judgment stressed the standard of proof based on preponderance of probability, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issue 4: The judgment scrutinized discrepancies in witness testimonies and the prosecution's case. It noted inconsistencies in the complainant's version, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. The court emphasized the principle of judgment in favor of the accused when two views are possible, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against acquittal.
The judgment underscored the importance of proving demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification for a corruption offense. It highlighted the prosecution's obligation to establish foundational facts before shifting the burden to the accused. The court's decision to dismiss the appeal against acquittal was based on the principle of judgment favoring the accused when doubt exists.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1229
Classification of product Appy Fizz (juice) - decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL Versus PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. [2008 (3) TMI 67 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], contested, where it was held that drinks based on fruit juice are specifically classifiable u/h 22029020, as per the certificate, the product in question contains 23% of apple juice, therefore, classifiable u/h 22029020 not u/h 22021010 as aerated water - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1228
... ...
... ... ..... y condoned. The Civil Appeals is dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1227
... ...
... ... ..... y condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1226
Whether the writ petition by the respondent was not maintainable, in view of clause 17 of the lease agreements dated 11.4.1989, 10.5.1990 and 29.4.1991 providing for settlement of disputes by arbitration ?
Whether the recommendation by the Hiring Committee was binding on the appellant and whether the respondent- landlord could enforce payment of the rent recommended by the Hiring Committee ?
Whether the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned order dated 31.8.2006 are warranted or justified ?
-
2009 (7) TMI 1225
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in a case where the Department challenged an order of the Settlement Commission in Bombay High Court instead of Delhi High Court. The Court directed the Department to file the petition in Delhi High Court and stated that observations made by Bombay High Court will not be considered. Special Leave Petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1224
The Gujarat High Court allowed a civil application, modifying an order and granting ad-interim relief. The order dated 02.07.2009 in Special Civil Application No. 5193 of 2009 was substituted, with a rule returnable on 13th August 2009. The application was disposed of with the mentioned clarification.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1223
Detention of person - territorial jurisdiction - Maintainability of petition - Held that: - even if we are to consider the question of territorial jurisdiction from the standpoint of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, this Court would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition - whether the present case is viewed from the standpoint of Article 226(1) or from the standpoint of Article 226(2), this Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
Validity of detention order - the retraction letter of Kiran Vora dated 28.02.2001 had not been placed/ considered by the detaining authority - case of petitioner is also that the detention order has lost its relevance due to efflux of time - Held that: - the detention order in the present case has lost its relevance through the combined effect of passage of time and lack of any evidence of any prejudicial activity on the part of the proposed detenu (Mukesh Vora) - the fact that this writ petition is maintainable even at the pre-execution stage coupled with the fact that in the passage of over eight years since the passing of the detention order, there is no evidence on record of any prejudicial activity on the part of the proposed detenu Mr Mukesh Vora, in itself is sufficient for us to conclude that the detention order has lost its relevance today.
The detention order be cancelled - petition allowed.
............
|
9911796707
