|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 502 Records
-
2001 (11) TMI 1041
Issues Involved:
1. Control of the company and composition of the Board.
2. Sale and transfer of 2000 shares held by the company in Surma Valley Stock Ltd.
3. Increase in the paid-up capital of the company by accepting unpaid amounts on 400 shares held by Surma.
4. Issuance of duplicate share certificates.
5. Registration of transfer of 177 shares.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Control of the Company and Composition of the Board:
The petitioners initially filed CP No. 8 of 1998 alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement, focusing on which group of shareholders controlled the majority voting power. The Company Law Board (CLB) directed an Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM) to elect directors, a decision upheld by the Gauhati High Court. Despite the EOGM results favoring the respondents, the CLB later declared the petitioners' nominees as directors and ordered the board to hand over control, a directive challenged and stayed by the Gauhati High Court. The petitioners argued that the respondents, under the guise of the interim status quo order, took decisions to usurp control, including increasing the paid-up capital and selling shares, thus creating a new majority and oppressing the petitioners.
2. Sale and Transfer of 2000 Shares in Surma Valley Stock Ltd.:
The petitioners contended that the sale of 2000 shares in Surma was engineered to transfer control to unknown persons, thereby affecting the voting rights on 400 shares held by Surma in the company. This sale, they argued, was done without general body approval and aimed at reducing the petitioners' majority to a minority. The respondents justified the sale by stating Surma was dormant and the company needed funds. The CLB found the sale lacked transparency and bona fide intent, noting the non-disclosure of buyers' identities and the consideration amount. The CLB directed the company to disclose the buyers' details and issued show-cause notices to them, indicating potential cancellation of the sale.
3. Increase in Paid-Up Capital by Accepting Unpaid Amounts on 400 Shares:
The petitioners argued that the acceptance of unpaid amounts on 400 shares held by Surma, making them fully paid, was done to increase voting power, violating a restraint order. The CLB noted that there was no evidence of a board resolution calling up the unpaid amount, and the acceptance of money post-restraint order indicated mala fide intent. The CLB found this act oppressive and directed that voting rights on these shares be restricted to their previous paid-up value until the Gauhati High Court's decision.
4. Issuance of Duplicate Share Certificates:
The petitioners alleged that the respondents were issuing duplicate certificates for dormant shares to manipulate voting power. The respondents argued that issuing duplicates was a legitimate duty. The CLB, considering the contentious nature of shareholding, directed the company to hold all requests for duplicate certificates until the Gauhati High Court disposed of the appeal.
5. Registration of Transfer of 177 Shares:
The petitioners complained about the non-registration of 177 shares lodged for transfer since 1998. The respondents claimed the transfer instruments were defective. The CLB directed the company to return the share certificates and transfer instruments to the petitioners for correction and relodgement, ensuring registration within 15 days of proper submission.
Conclusion:
The CLB found the respondents' actions, including the sale of Surma shares and acceptance of unpaid amounts, aimed at creating a new majority and oppressive to the petitioners. The CLB directed remedial actions, including potential cancellation of the Surma share sale, restriction on voting rights of the 400 shares, and holding requests for duplicate certificates, while ensuring proper registration of the 177 shares. The judgment emphasized maintaining the status quo until the Gauhati High Court's final decision.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1040
Issues Involved:
1. Breach of Agreement
2. Supply and Payment Discrepancies
3. Termination of Agreements
4. Suppression of Material Facts
5. Entitlement to Injunctive Relief
Detailed Analysis:
1. Breach of Agreement:
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 2nd October 1999. Specifically, the defendants did not supply the initial consignment of 5000 capsules within 21 days and delayed the subsequent consignment of one lakh capsules by five months. Additionally, the defendants did not provide the necessary sales promotion materials timely, impacting the plaintiff's marketing strategies.
2. Supply and Payment Discrepancies:
The defendants were accused of billing the capsules at varying prices instead of the agreed price of Rs. 5.85 per capsule. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants dispatched consignments under the guise of storage space shortage and pressured the plaintiff to pay for them. Furthermore, the defendants allegedly diverted the infrastructure funds provided by the plaintiff for other purposes, delaying the supplies.
3. Termination of Agreements:
The defendants contended that due to the plaintiff's failure to make timely payments and lift the minimum required capsules, they terminated the agreements. The termination of the exclusive marketing rights for 'dbNorm' was effective from 16th August 2000, and for 'Glunorm' from 1st February 2001. The plaintiff did not disclose these terminations in their suit, misleading the court into believing the agreements were still in force.
4. Suppression of Material Facts:
The court found that the plaintiff suppressed material facts, including crucial communications regarding the termination of agreements. This suppression was deemed significant as it misled the court during the initial hearing, resulting in the grant of an ex parte injunction. The court emphasized that a party seeking discretionary relief must approach with clean hands, disclosing all relevant facts.
5. Entitlement to Injunctive Relief:
The court held that due to the suppression of material facts by the plaintiff, they were not entitled to the discretionary relief of an injunction. The court cited precedents emphasizing that suppression of material facts is grounds for denying such relief. The balance of convenience also favored the defendants, as they would suffer irreparable loss if restrained from selling their products, whereas the plaintiff could be compensated for any loss of business.
Conclusion:
The court vacated the ex parte injunction granted on 3rd May 2001, allowing the defendants to continue selling their products. The plaintiff's application for injunction was rejected, and they were ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs. The judgment underscored the importance of full disclosure and clean hands in seeking equitable relief.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1039
Issues:
- Quashing of investigation by High Court in a criminal case under IPC sections
- Application of legal principles for interference in investigation by High Court
- Specific allegations of forgery and conspiracy in the FIR
- Exercise of power to quash criminal proceedings by the High Court
- Granting of pre-arrest bail to one of the respondents
Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of quashing an investigation by the High Court in a criminal case involving various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal challenged the High Court's judgment that quashed the investigation of a case against eight accused, including six Revenue Officers and two private individuals. The FIR alleged forgery and fraud in the assessment of assets, leading to the High Court's decision to halt the investigation. The Supreme Court referred to the established legal principles regarding the interference by the High Court in criminal cases, citing the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The Court highlighted two categories where the High Court can intervene, emphasizing the need for specific allegations to justify quashing an investigation.
The Supreme Court analyzed the specific allegations in the FIR, which included accusations of forgery and conspiracy. The FIR mentioned a conspiracy involving one of the respondents, detailing the misappropriation of state funds through illegal means. The Court concluded that the allegations in the FIR prima facie established a case against the accused, including the writ petitioners, indicating a cognizable offense. Drawing from the Bhajan Lal case, the Court emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be sparingly exercised and reserved for rare cases, which did not apply in the present situation.
Regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail to one of the respondents, the Court accepted the plea and directed that the respondent be released on furnishing a bond with sureties. The Court emphasized the respondent's cooperation with the investigation as a condition for the pre-arrest bail. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by overturning the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that the High Court erred in quashing the investigation and impeding the prosecution process. The Court reiterated the importance of allowing the police to complete the investigation in cases where offenses have been disclosed in the FIR.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1038
Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi to institute the suit.
2. Lapsing of design registrations.
3. Functional shapes or mechanical devices as subject matter of design registration.
4. Validity of patents as obvious improvements.
5. Acquiescence, estoppel, delay, and laches.
6. Expenditure on development of allegedly infringing products.
7. Lifting the corporate veil and real partners of the joint venture.
8. Working of patents and commercial exploitation.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Locus Standi to Institute the Suit:
The respondent's locus standi was challenged on the grounds of inconsistent claims regarding ownership of patents and alleged concealment of material facts. The original proprietor of the designs was LTE, which transferred rights to the respondent. The court held that these issues could only be decided after evidence was led and that the respondent, being the registered owner of the patent, had prima facie locus standi to maintain the suit.
2. Lapsing of Design Registrations:
The appellant contended that the design registrations had lapsed. However, the learned Single Judge found that the renewals made the patents current up to date, establishing a prima facie case for the validity of the registrations.
3. Functional Shapes or Mechanical Devices as Subject Matter of Design Registration:
The appellant argued that the products were purely functional and not subject to design registration. The respondent countered that the products had visible features and had been registered for over eight years without challenge. The court found that the products had visible features and that a prima facie case existed for the design registration's validity.
4. Validity of Patents as Obvious Improvements:
The appellant claimed the patents were invalid as they were mere workshop improvements. The court analyzed conflicting expert reports and noted the appellant's significant expenditure on research and development. The court concluded that the appellant failed to make a prima facie case that the D2 range was merely a workshop improvement.
5. Acquiescence, Estoppel, Delay, and Laches:
The appellant argued that the respondent had acquiesced to the manufacture and marketing of the D2 range. The court found that the respondent had consistently refused to grant rights to the D2 range and that the appellant's development efforts did not equate to a license to copy. The court also found no material delay that would disentitle the respondent to relief.
6. Expenditure on Development of Allegedly Infringing Products:
The appellant claimed to have spent Rs. 4 crores on developing the D2 range. The court found discrepancies in the appellant's financial statements and concluded that the expenditure did not justify the infringement of the respondent's patents.
7. Lifting the Corporate Veil and Real Partners of the Joint Venture:
The court found no significance in this plea, as the findings on other issues rendered it moot.
8. Working of Patents and Commercial Exploitation:
The appellant argued that the respondent's patents were not commercially exploited. The court found that the respondent had provided evidence of commercial exploitation and that the patents were being used, thus rejecting the appellant's plea.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the learned Single Judge's findings, concluding that the respondent had a prima facie case, the balance of convenience lay in granting the temporary injunction, and irreparable loss and injury would be suffered by the respondent due to the appellant's patent infringement. The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000, and interim orders were vacated.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1037
The petitioner filed a petition under the Companies Act, 1956 to wind up the respondent's affairs due to unpaid debts from bounced cheques. However, the court dismissed the petition as the notices issued were under the Negotiable Instruments Act, not the Companies Act, making them invalid. The petitioner can pursue other legal actions.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1036
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the purported EOGM dated 24-3-1999 and the resolution passed regarding the allotment of 2000 additional shares.
2. Whether the transfer of shares by three groups of shareholders to the third respondent violated Article 10 of the Articles of Association.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of the EOGM and Allotment of Shares
The petitioners alleged that no notice of the purported EOGM dated 24-3-1999 was given to them and that the meeting did not actually take place. They claimed that the minutes of the said meeting were fabricated. The respondents contended that the EOGM was held with due notice to all shareholders and attended by 76.4% of the equity shareholders, except the Mondal group. However, the respondents failed to provide any evidence, such as postal certificates or dispatch registers, to prove that notices were sent. The court noted that the respondents did not produce any minutes of the Board meeting that allegedly decided to call the EOGM, nor did they provide any proof of service of notice to the first petitioner, who was a director.
The court held that the respondents failed to establish that notices for the EOGM were sent to the petitioners. Additionally, the court found that certain businesses not proposed in the notice were transacted in the meeting, making the decisions taken at the EOGM invalid. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that the meeting did not take place or that the minutes were fabricated. Despite the procedural lapses, the court did not nullify the allotment of 2000 shares to the third respondent, as it was done in the interest of the company, which was in financial difficulties.
Issue 2: Transfer of Shares and Violation of Article 10
The petitioners argued that the transfer of shares by three groups of shareholders to the third respondent violated Article 10 of the Articles of Association, which requires that shares be offered to existing members before being transferred to non-members. The respondents admitted the transfer but claimed it was in accordance with Article 10, as the third respondent had become a shareholder on 24-3-1999.
The court noted that Article 10(a) prohibits the transfer of shares to non-members as long as any member is willing to purchase them. Article 10(b) requires a notice of intention to sell to be given to the company. The court found that the third respondent, having become a shareholder on 24-3-1999, was eligible to purchase the shares. The court also noted that the petitioners would have been entitled to only 23% of the shares transferred, not all of them. The court held that the transfer of shares, even if in violation of Article 10, was not an act of oppression, as it was done in the interest of the company.
Relief Granted:
The court directed that the petitioners' group would exit the company on receipt of proper consideration for their shares. The company was instructed to get the valuation of the shares done by the statutory auditors based on the balance sheet as on 31-3-2000. The consideration for the shares held by the petitioners' group would be paid either by the respondents or by the company, and the whole exercise was to be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the valuation report. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1035
The Supreme Court allowed the applications for withdrawal of appeals, granting the appellant liberty to take further legal steps. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. [Case: 2001 (11) TMI 1035 - SC]
-
2001 (11) TMI 1034
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of additions based on undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B.
2. Specific additions related to cash found, FDRs, KVPs, interest on KVPs, gifts, cash credits, share of profit, truck income, income from other sources, and agricultural income.
3. Application of section 158B(b) and section 158BB.
4. Allowance of deductions under section 88.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Additions Based on Undisclosed Income under Chapter XIV-B:
The core issue is whether the income assessed falls within the definition of 'undisclosed income' under section 158B(b). The tribunal emphasized that Chapter XIV-B applies only to undisclosed income, which includes any money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles or things, or any income based on entries in the books of account or other documents not disclosed for tax purposes. The tribunal clarified that computation provisions under section 158BB cannot override the charging provisions of section 158B(b). Thus, income disclosed in regular returns cannot be taxed under Chapter XIV-B unless it qualifies as undisclosed income.
2. Specific Additions:
- Cash Found (Rs. 27,200): The tribunal upheld the addition as the assessee could not provide evidence for the source of cash found in the locker. The balance sheet did not show cash in hand to the extent claimed.
- FDRs (Rs. 50,000): The addition was deleted because the FDR was duly entered in the cash book and ledger, thus not qualifying as undisclosed income.
- FDRs (Rs. 13,964 and Rs. 13,776): These additions were upheld since the FDRs were not entered in the books of account and the claim that they were out of agricultural income was not substantiated by the balance sheet.
- KVPs (Rs. 2.60 lakhs): The addition was deleted as the KVPs were disclosed in the balance sheet as of 31-3-1995 and could not be considered undisclosed income.
- Interest on KVPs (Rs. 11,240 and Rs. 22,275): These additions were deleted because the assets on which the income accrued were disclosed in the books of account.
- Gifts (Rs. 25,000): The addition was deleted as the gift was disclosed in the books of account and capital account.
- Cash Credits (Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 53,000): These additions were deleted as the cash credits were disclosed in the books and balance sheets, thus outside the scope of Chapter XIV-B.
- Share of Profit (Rs. 15,763): The addition was deleted as the share income from the firm was disclosed in the returns.
- Truck Income (Rs. 90,000): The addition was deleted because the truck income was a regular source disclosed from assessment year 1987-88 onwards.
- Income from Other Sources (Rs. 50,000): The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and not on material found during the search.
- Undisclosed Income (Rs. 1,10,623): The addition was deleted as income shown in the return, even if filed late, cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section 158B(b).
- Agricultural Income: The addition was deleted as agricultural income was shown in returns from assessment years 1992-93 onwards and could not be considered undisclosed income.
3. Application of Section 158B(b) and Section 158BB:
The tribunal reiterated that section 158B(b) is the charging provision for undisclosed income, while section 158BB provides the method of computation. The computation provisions cannot supersede the charging provisions, and income that does not qualify as undisclosed under section 158B(b) cannot be taxed under Chapter XIV-B.
4. Allowance of Deductions under Section 88:
The tribunal allowed deductions under section 88, citing the specific provision of section 158BH, which states that all other provisions of the Act shall apply to assessments made under Chapter XIV-B.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with several additions deleted based on the interpretation of 'undisclosed income' under section 158B(b) and the application of section 158BB. The tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence found during the search and the proper application of legal provisions in determining undisclosed income.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1033
The Allahabad High Court reduced a penalty imposed under Section 15-A (1) (o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act from Rs. 37,217 to Rs. 1,000. The court found that the penalty was unjust as there was no evidence of intent to evade tax while transporting goods without Form 31/32. The penalty orders were quashed, and any amount deposited was to be refunded to the revisionist.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1032
Issues involved: Whether High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for breach of contract relief.
Summary:
The Supreme Court addressed the limited question of whether the High Court should have used its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant relief for an alleged breach of contract. The Court emphasized that a writ is not the appropriate remedy for enforcing contractual obligations and that litigants should pursue alternative remedies available to them. Despite this settled law, the respondent filed a writ petition challenging the deduction of a sum for losses suffered due to breach of contract. The Court found that the High Court's decision to grant relief in the writ petition was illegal and erroneous, as such disputes should be resolved through evidence in a properly instituted civil suit rather than in a writ petition.
The case involved a contract for the supply of PVC pipes and fittings, where the respondent company delayed supplies due to alleged wrongful refusal to return necessary permits. The appellants terminated the contract and deducted the additional costs incurred from the final payment to the respondent. The High Court, in its judgment, directed the appellants to pay the due amount to the respondent with interest. However, the Supreme Court held that such disputed questions of breach of contract should be resolved through evidence in a civil suit, not in a writ petition. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and stated that the respondent could seek other appropriate remedies.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1031
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Commissioner to cancel the eligibility certificate.
2. Applicability of Section 4-A (3) of the Trade Tax Act.
3. Timeliness of the cancellation order.
4. Procedural requirements under Section 4-A (2-B) of the Act after reconstitution of the firm.
Detailed Analysis:
Authority of the Commissioner to Cancel the Eligibility Certificate:
The revisionist argued that the Commissioner does not have the authority to cancel the eligibility certificate granted by the Divisional Level Committee. The appropriate recourse for the Commissioner, if aggrieved, would be to file an appeal under Section 10 (2) of the Act. The Court supported this view, citing the decision in Mansarover Bottling Company Limited v. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, 1999 U.P.T.C. 864, which held that the Commissioner cannot act as a judge in his own cause and should file an appeal instead.
Applicability of Section 4-A (3) of the Trade Tax Act:
The revisionist contended that the powers under Section 4-A (3) of the Act could not be exercised by the Commissioner on debatable questions of fact and law. The Court agreed, referencing Commissioner of Trade Tax v. M/s. R. K. Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1999 U.P.T.C. 1147, which stated that such powers are limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors that are patent and apparent from the record, not errors subject to rational debate.
Timeliness of the Cancellation Order:
The revisionist argued that the cancellation order was passed much after the exemption period had expired, making it highly improper. The Court found merit in this argument, noting that the exemption period was from 26th May 1991 to 25th May 1999, and the eligibility certificate was canceled on 27th December 1999. The Court referenced M/s. Janta Dal Mills, Fatehpur v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 1999 U.P.T.C. 1123, where it was held that initiating cancellation proceedings long after the exemption period had expired was improper.
Procedural Requirements Under Section 4-A (2-B) of the Act:
The Commissioner argued that after the reconstitution of the firm on 1st November 1991, the revisionist was required to apply under Section 4-A (2-B) of the Act within sixty days, which was not done. The Court noted that although the application was not made within sixty days, a circular issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax on 1st January 1992, stated that reconstitution of the firm would not be treated as dissolution and no new application was required. The Court found that the revisionist could have reasonably believed that no application was needed due to this circular.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the Commissioner's order canceling the eligibility certificate and the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal could not be upheld. The revisionist was entitled to the benefit of the eligibility certificate granted to it. Therefore, the revision was allowed, and the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal were set aside.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1030
Issues Involved:
1. Whether profits from exports are a precondition for relief u/s 80HHC(3)(b).
2. Applicability of section 80HHC(3)(b) to profits like cash compensatory support and duty drawback.
3. Applicability of section 80HHC(3)(b) for apportionment of export profits in cases where local business is not in the same goods as exported.
Summary:
Issue 1: Whether profits from exports are a precondition for relief u/s 80HHC(3)(b)
The Tribunal concluded that the matter was academic as the assessee had profits in the business of exports. The issue stands settled by the earlier Special Bench decision, which held that the presence of export profits is not a precondition for claiming deduction under section 80HHC(3)(b).
Issue 2: Applicability of section 80HHC(3)(b) to profits like cash compensatory support and duty drawback
The Tribunal held that cash compensatory support (CCS) and duty drawback (DDB) received by the assessee against exports qualify for deduction under section 80HHC(1) without applying the proportionate method of clause (3) of section 80HHC. This is based on the argument that these incentives are derived directly from the business of exports and should not be subjected to the proportionate calculation method. The Tribunal also noted that the amendments to the law introduced by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, effective from 1-4-1992, were not applicable to the assessment year 1986-87.
Issue 3: Applicability of section 80HHC(3)(b) for apportionment of export profits in cases where local business is not in the same goods as exported
The Tribunal upheld the view that if the assessee has both export and local business, clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC applies. This means that the total turnover of the entire business, including both export and domestic turnover, must be aggregated to compute the profits derived from export turnover. The Tribunal rejected the argument that separate books of account for different businesses would allow for separate computation of export profits without aggregation. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent was to avoid litigation by providing a method of apportioning profits on the basis of turnover, irrespective of whether the local business dealt in the same goods as exported or different goods.
The Tribunal also referred to the earlier Special Bench decision in the case of International Research Park Laboratories Ltd., which had considered similar issues and concluded that the profits of the entire business must be computed and then apportioned based on the export turnover to total turnover ratio.
Conclusion
The Tribunal directed that the matter be placed before the Division Bench for passing an order in conformity with the views expressed by the Special Bench and to deal with any other grounds raised in the appeal.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1029
The High Court of Madras ruled that income from letting out a property for a marriage hall by a trust is property income, not business income. Therefore, the trust is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The decision was based on a previous case involving similar facts.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1028
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the termination order (whether punitive or simpliciter).
2. Legality of the termination without a full-scale departmental inquiry.
3. Impact of the statements made in the counter affidavit on the nature of the termination order.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Termination Order:
The appellant contended that the termination order was punitive and cast a stigma on him, which required a full-scale departmental inquiry. The termination order stated that the appellant's "work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory," which the appellant argued was stigmatic. However, the court held that the language used in the termination order did not amount to a stigma. It was noted that the words used were similar to those in previous cases, such as Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, where such language was deemed non-stigmatic. The court concluded that the termination order was not ex-facie stigmatic and did not imply punishment.
2. Legality of the Termination Without a Full-Scale Departmental Inquiry:
The appellant argued that the termination was based on allegations of misconduct, which necessitated a full-scale departmental inquiry. The respondents conducted a summary inquiry to assess the appellant's fitness for confirmation. The court examined whether the inquiry held prior to the termination turned the order into one of punishment. It referred to the tests established in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, which include whether there was a full-scale formal inquiry, into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct, culminating in a finding of guilt. The court found that none of these factors were present in the appellant's case. The inquiry report found the appellant unable to meet the requirements for the post, and thus, the termination was upheld as non-punitive.
3. Impact of Statements in the Counter Affidavit:
The appellant pointed to statements in the counter affidavit alleging that his integrity and honesty were doubtful, arguing that these statements indicated a punitive intent. The court referred to the principle established in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, which states that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order itself and cannot be supplemented by statements in affidavits. Similarly, in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kumar Shukla, it was held that statements in a counter affidavit do not change the nature and character of the termination order. The court concluded that the statements in the counter affidavit did not render the termination order punitive.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the termination order was not punitive, did not cast a stigma, and did not require a full-scale departmental inquiry. The statements in the counter affidavit did not affect the validity of the termination order. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1027
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Director of Education's decision regarding the entitlement to selection scale for teachers with 18 years of service, even without a postgraduate qualification. The Court emphasized that the relaxation granted by the Government was a matter of policy and not irrational. The Court clarified that any extra payments made to the teacher should not be recovered.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1026
The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that deposits received towards sales tax should be included in the computation of income as trading receipts. The Court also upheld the deduction of capital loss from the total income, finding no error in the Tribunal's decision. The judgment favored the assessee and went against the revenue.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1025
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a reference application by the revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that no referable question of law arose as the issues raised were already covered by previous decisions.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1024
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the High Court, liability determination between owner/driver and Insurance Company, protection of claimants' interests.
Condonation of Delay: The Insurance Company filed an appeal in the High Court within the limitation period, but the certified copy of the award was lost, causing a delay of 105 days. The High Court refused to condone the delay, leading to the appeal being dismissed. The Supreme Court, however, found that the delay should be condoned as the appellant acted in good faith, and the appeal deserved to be heard on merits.
Liability Determination: The Supreme Court directed that the appeal be heard on the question of fixing liability for satisfying the claim between the owner/driver and the Insurance Company. The contest was to be confined between the owner/driver and the insurer, protecting the interests of the claimants and preventing further litigation.
Protection of Claimants' Interests: The amount deposited by the Insurance Company was ordered to be remitted to the Tribunal for the claimants. Claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount due to them along with interest, subject to adjustments. If the Insurance Company is exonerated, they can reimburse themselves from the owner/driver. The balance amount, if any, would be returned to the Insurance Company.
Disposition: The appeal was allowed, and the directions were provided for the liability determination and protection of claimants' interests. No costs were awarded in the matter.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1023
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, stating that the construction of the rule by the High Court is fair and reasonable.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1022
The appellate tribunal in New Delhi considered whether Pitch Loading Buckets used as material-handling equipment were eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The credit was disallowed initially, but the lower appellate authority set aside this decision. The tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision based on a Supreme Court case precedent, ruling that the equipment was eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected. (2001 (11) TMI 1022 - CESTAT NEW DELHI)
........
|
9911796707
