|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 349 Records
-
1998 (10) TMI 535 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s but up to the date of service of the order of rejection on the detenu the delay amounts to 32 days. (Emphasis supplied). 4. Since it is common ground between the counsel for the parties that the representation made by the detenu before the Central Advisory Board on 2-3-1998 was rejected by the Central Government on 15-4-1998 and the result of the rejection as is evident from para 2 of the affidavit of Mr. J. N. Gawande has not been communicated to the detenu yet, his continued detention would be vitiated, in view of the ratio laid dowri in AIR 1981 SC 1126 (supra) and (supra). 5. Since the continued detention of the detenu in furtherance of the impugned detention order is vitiated in law, as a logical imperative the impugned detention order would have to be quashed. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute in the said terms.
-
1998 (10) TMI 534 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s the death of the life assured has occurred before the expiry of three years from the date of the policy i.e. 31.3.1990. Even though we have construed the provisions of Clause 4-B as aforesaid but so far the amount of compensation payable to the respondent is concerned we find from the letter of the Corporation dated 2.2.1995 that the Claims Review Committee has examined the facts of the case and had decided to pay a sum of Rupees two lacs on ex-gratia basis and we see no reason why the respondent should not be entitled to receive the said amount together with the interest thereon. The said offer of the Corporation having been made on 2nd of February, 1995 and more than three and half year having been elapsed since then, we think that the Corporation-appellant should pay a total sum of three lacs to the respondent-claimant in full satisfaction of the claim of the respondent and this amount should be paid within eight weeks from today. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (10) TMI 533 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... im, his subjective satisfaction would have been the same. 13. For the said reasons, we feel that the detenu's reply (dated 27-10-1997) to the show cause notice dated 5-5-1997 was a vital document and its non-placement before the detaining authority has vitiated the detention order on account of non-application of mind. We also feel that since it was a vital document, the detaining authority should have supplied its copy to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and his failure to do so has precluded the detenu from making an effective representation under the said provision. 14. In our view, for the said reasons, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained in law. 15. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Issuance of certified copy is expedited.
-
1998 (10) TMI 532 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... al, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 531 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as dismissed on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed on the date of application and therefore, the proper course for the tenant was to make an application under Section 29 of the Tenancy Act. It is only after this finding by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 30.6.1961, the tenant on the very same day filed an application under Section 29(1) of the Act. The High Court, therefore, was right in holding that the tenant was prosecuting the proceedings under Section 84 of the Act bona fide and in good faith and consequently justified in condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 29 of the Act on 30.6.1961. The judgment of the High Court in our view, dies not suffer from any infirmity. It also needs to be stated that the Watandar Mahadeo Mohite who had suffered an aoverse order in the High Court did not leave petition or joining himself as an appellant in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.
-
1998 (10) TMI 530 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aforesaid period for closing prosecution evidence. The above directions will be in addition to and without prejudice to the directions issued by this Court in "Common Cause" Vs. Union of India (1996)(4) SCC 33) as modified by the same bench through the order reported in "Common Cause" a registered Society Vs. Union of India (1996) (6) SCC 775). 17. In the result, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and direct the Special Judge, C.B.I. South Bihar, Patna to pass appropriate orders in the case of the petitioner in pursuance of this judgment. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 18. We issue the following additional direction in so far as the State of Bihar is concerned - The State of Bihar shall constitute, within a period of three months from today, at least five Special Courts, to try the cases involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 or its corresponding previous Act with or without other offences allied to them.
-
1998 (10) TMI 529 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t is unsustainable and it is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by respondents 3 and 4 is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. 27. Before parting with the case, we wish to place on record our strong disapproval of the stand taken by the State Government in this appeal. In the High Court, Government stood by the seniority list and justified it. When the High Court allowed the writ petition, the Govt. ought to have filed an appeal in this Court particularly because the promotees were not made parties to the writ petition. Not only did the Govt. fail to do so but in this Court it actively supported the case of the writ petitioners. The conduct of the Govt. is highly reprehensible. It is only because of such attitude, the disputes between direct recruits on the one hand and promotees on the other became perennial. It is hightime the Govt. released that if the employees are made to live through endless litigations, administration cannot be carried on properly.
-
1998 (10) TMI 528 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an earlier agreement and not the latter agreement. Therefore, obviously, it does not refer to the cheque received for ₹ 35 lakhs. It refer to cheques and not the cheque. The clause provides the parties or the 1st party to initiate further proceedings including action under section 138 of the Act in respect of cheques handed over and that too with not to later agreement. 10. Therefore, I am of the considered view that as an undated cheque having been given only as security, the provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not at all attracted and hence, the complaint against the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be maintained at all. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein C.C.No. 6029 of 1997, pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. In view of the order passed in the main petition, Crl. M.P.No. 6854 of 1997 shall stand closed
-
1998 (10) TMI 527 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Party No.1 has suffered any damages, if so, is entitled to any compensation?
Whether the claim is barred by acquiescence, laches, estoppel, limitation and res judicata?
Held that:- In any event, we do not find it possible to accept learned counsel’s submission that granting compensation for the alleged lost potential of the land was permissible moulding of the relief. It was not the case of the appellants in the writ petition, even in the alternative, that the land could not be reclaimed and there was no claim for compensation for the slleged lost potential of the land or averments or particulars in support thereof. The relief that was sought was direction to the second respondent to reclaim the appellants’ land; awarding compensation for the alleged lost potential of the land was not moulding the relief that was sought.
We hold that the award of Rs.77,19,800 for "loss of potential of land" and interest thereon falls outside the scope of the reference to arbitration and is not in relation to a dispute contemplated thereby. The award dated 2nd January, 1998 is set aside.
-
1998 (10) TMI 526 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... om this source and to decide which methods would be most efficacious for this purpose. The provisions of the sales tax law of each State must, therefore, necessarily differ in various respects from the provisions of sales tax laws of other States. If the provisions of the legislation of every State on a particular topic are to be identical in every respect, there is no purpose in including that topic in the State List and it may as will be included in the Union List. Merely because the provisions of a State law differ from the provisions of other State laws on the same subject cannot make such provisions discriminatory. 15.. For the reasons given above, we hold the provisions of subsection (3) of section 45 of the Act as valid and the same are not ultra vires. 16.. As the petitioner has remedy of appeal against the impugned assessment orders, this writ application is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No costs. A.K. PRASAD, J.-I agree. Writ application dismissed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 525 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w taken by Madras, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts in the cases referred to supra. The view of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court is also that there is no taxable sale in a transaction of this nature. 71.. In the view, we have taken, there is no need to answer the question whether the disputed transactions can be regarded as sales within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act and any sale price is attributable to the movables involved in the transfer of the business undertaking. 72.. In the result, the T.R.C. stands allowed and the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside. W.P. Nos. 9490 and 9506 of 1998 are also allowed and the impugned assessment orders and demand notices are quashed. As far as W.P. No. 23827 of 1996 in which rule 6(h) had been challenged is concerned, the same is dismissed as unnecessary. We make no order as to costs in all these cases. T.R.C. No. 144 of 1996 allowed W.P. Nos. 9490 and 9506 of 1998 allowed W.P. No. 23827 of 1996 dismissed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 524 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... espondents Nos. 4 to 6 that they are not under any statutory or contractual obligation to issue form D to the petitioner, in the absence of which he has been denied the concessional rate of 4 per cent of sales tax and has been assessed at 7 per cent by the assessing authority for the years 1987-88 to 1990-91. 9.. In the result, in order to do justice to the petitioner we direct respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to issue requisite certificate (form D ) for the purchases made by them of goods in which the property had been transferred to them by way of execution of the works contract awarded to the petitioner and executed by him. We further direct the assessing authority, respondent No. 3, to review the assessment keeping in view the issue of the certificate (form D ). In view of these directions the interim order dated June 28, 1995 staying recovery will continue till the review of the assessment. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 523 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ,229.45, were duly accounted for and that necessary materials were produced before the Tribunal. But no finding was recorded by the Tribunal on such contention. Our attention is drawn to annexure F-Grounds of Appeal. Adverting to the said annexure, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was well demonstrated before the Tribunal that the aforesaid bills were duly posted in the books of accounts and yet no finding was recorded by the Tribunal. This requires reconsideration by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal omitted to consider the ground specifically raised in this behalf. In the result, the revision on the first point fails and is dismissed. In so far as the second point is concerned, the case is remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal, who will consider the submission of the petitioner and record a clear finding afresh whether or not the aforesaid sale bills are duly posted in the books of account of the petitioner. The Tribunal s order in this behalf is set aside.
-
1998 (10) TMI 522 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mount paid towards tax assessed or penalty levied or both. So construed, since fifty per cent of the total tax and penalty amount of Rs. 8,27,420.40 works out at Rs. 4,13,710.20 and out of the said fifty per cent, the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs. 4,10,280, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes should have insisted upon the balance amount of Rs. 3,430.20 as the minimum fifty per cent deposit towards tax and penalty for entertaining the appeal under clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20 of the 1976 Act. 6.. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that on payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,430.20 by the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartala, will entertain the appeal, hear and dispose of the same on its merit. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their respective costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (10) TMI 521 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essee approached in appeal before the Tribunal, who affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner. This is how the assessee has come to this Court in revision. 5.. After the matter being compounded, we are of the considered view that neither can the assessee nor can the department challenge the compounding order. In the compounding order, it is implied that the extent of suppression which are detected at the time of inspection by the Intelligence Squad of the department, was accepted by the assessing authority and, therefore, it was no more open to the Deputy Commissioner to reopen the matter under the purported exercise of power under section 35 of the Act that the suppression was much higher and, therefore, the assessee was liable to pay much more compounding fee. 6.. The revision, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order dated April 16, 1997 passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the order, annexure C , passed by the Deputy Commissioner are set aside. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 520 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y clear that no final finding was recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and the matter was left open to the assessing officer to consider the limited question whether the respondent retired from the firm with effect from April 1, 1985 and if that is so, whether such liability could be fastened upon him for the years in question. 7.. This being the state of affairs, we are of the considered opinion that no question arises for our decision. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case we see no illegality in the case being remitted to the assessing officer on the limited question. 8.. In the result, all the three revision petitions fail and are dismissed with the observations that the assessing officer would be at liberty to take any view on merits of the question whether the respondent retired from the firm with effect from April 1, 1985 and to consider all aspects relating to the plea of retirement from the firm and the effect thereof. Petitions dismissed. Here italicised.
-
1998 (10) TMI 519 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ari 1985 WLR 240 that once assessment was served on the assessee and the tax remained unpaid, the statutory charge under section 24(1) of the Act is enforceable against the transferee of the property. 18.. On a thorough consideration of all these circumstances, as a full fledged enquiry cannot be made in these proceedings with regard to the claim of the petitioners/purchasers to substantiate their version of bona fide purchase, they are directed to initiate civil suit to establish their title to the properties purchased by them. Therefore, these petitions are not sustainable and are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed subject to their right of filing, the civil suits. There will be, however, no order as to costs. And this Tribunal both further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 27th day of October, 1998. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 518 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 28 per cent. Therefore, in our view the test of predominance applies to the instant case. If the test of predominance is applied to the instant case, it does not fall under entry 114 of the First Schedule as entry 114 deals with articles where the composition of which is predominantly of wood. 5.. The Tribunal is not correct in holding that the cement is used for the purpose of the panel acquiring strength and durability and by covering the wood particles with cement, they are protected and therefore it falls under entry 114. It is the other way. The cement bonded with wood particles and the presence of wood is less in quantity. Further the use of the commodity as doors and partition is not relevant in determining the classification of an item in the Schedule. We therefore are of the view that the cement bonded particle board does not fall under entry 114 of the First Schedule. The tax revision cases are accordingly allowed. The Tribunal order is set aside. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 517 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed timber and used it as raw material for its manufacturing activity but not as fuel, which has been found favour with the Tribunal below. The Tribunal has also found that the wood purchased by the petitioner-company is for the purpose of using the same as raw material for the manufacture of paper and paper boards and such purchase is to be treated as unclassified goods . We are, therefore, inclined to hold that no question of law arises for adjudication on a finding of fact. Accordingly we hold that the finding that the eucalyptus and casuarina wood purchased by the petitioner-company has to be subjected to tax under section 6-A of the APGST Act, by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order dated October 18, 1993 is just and proper. As discussed above, this question No. 4 is also decided against the petitioner-company. 17.. Having regard to the above discussion, we see no merits in these T.R.Cs. and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 516 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r is obvious when there was no appeal by the State and no cross-objection was filed by the State in the appeal of the assessee, no observations regarding the exigibility to tax could be made by the Appellate Tribunal to the detriment of the assessee. In the result, the T.R.C. is allowed and the observations of the Appellate Tribunal to the extent that the assessee could be held liable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, if not under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 are set aside. Petition allowed.
........
|
